Bericht_D - unece.org · Web viewAn upcoming indicator can be the number of bathing waters for...

UNITEDNATIONS E

Economic and SocialCouncil

Distr.GENERAL

ECE/MP.WH/WG.1/2009/4 EUR/08/5086340/94 June 2009

Original: ENGLISH

ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATIONREGIONAL OFFICE FOR EUROPE

MEETING OF THE PARTIES TO THE PROTOCOL ON WATER AND HEALTH TO THE CONVENTION ON THE PROTECTIONAND USE OF TRANSBOUNDARYWATERCOURSES AND INTERNATIONALLAKES

Working Group on Water and Health

Second meetingGeneva, 2–3 July 2009Item 5 of the provisional agenda

SETTING OF TARGETS, EVALUATION OF PROGRESS AND REPORTING

GUIDELINES ON THE SETTING OF TARGETS, EVALUATION OF PROGRESS AND REPORTING

Submitted by Switzerland 1

Summary

This document was prepared pursuant to the decision of the first meeting of the Parties entrusting the Task Force on Indicators and Reporting, led by the Government of Switzerland, with the preparation of guidelines for target-setting for all targets under article 6, paragraph (a)–(n) (see the programme of work for 2007–2009 adopted at the first meeting of the Parties, ECE/MP.WH/2/Add.5 - EUR/06/5069385/1/Add.5). Indicators and Reporting (Geneva, 13–14 March 2008) discussed a preliminary draft of the guidelines. The document was presented to the first meeting of the Working Group on Water and

1 The present document has been submitted after the official documentation deadline due to resource constraints.GE.09-22143

ECE/MP.WH/WG.1/2009/4EUR/08/5086340/9Page 2

Health (Geneva, June 25–26 2008) and further elaborated by the core group on indicators and reporting. Participants of the workshop on setting targets and reporting (Geneva, 10–11 February 2009) provided additional inputs and the text was enriched by practical examples and case studies presented during this workshop. Further comments and amendments were made by the second meeting of the Task Force (Geneva, 12 February 2009), and the current version reflects such comments.

The Working Group on Water and Health is invited to comment on the draft guidelines and provide recommendations for further work to be undertaken by the Task Force on Indicators and Reporting and its core group. In particular, participants of the Working Group are invited to discuss and agree on:

(a) The general approach and specific recommendations of the different parts of the guidelines (part one);

(b) The level of prescription and the details of the guidelines;

(c) The revised outline and content of the specific target areas (part two).


CONTENTS Paragraphs Page

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 1-14 8I. Objectives and target group..................................................................... 2-5 9II. Background rationale............................................................................... 6-14 9

PART ONEMAIN STEPS FOR SETTING TARGETS, REVIEWING

PROGRESS AND REPORTING

I. Key issues to be considered when setting targets under the Protocol on Water and Health..................................................................................... 15-33 12

II. Setting targets........................................................................................... 34-77 15A. Identification of key stakeholders and setting up of coordination

mechanism .................................................................................. 35-41 16B. Baseline analysis.......................................................................... 42-44 17C. Identification and prioritization of problems............................... 45-47 19D. Agreement on draft targets, programme of measures and

indicators ..................................................................................... 48-64 20E. Broad consultation on the proposed targets, target dates and

relevant programme of measures ................................................ 65-71 27

F. Final agreement on targets and their publication and communicationto all stakeholders, including the public and consumers............. 72-75 30

G. Implementation of the programme of measures ......................... 76-77 30

III. Review and assessment of progress and reporting.................................. 78-89 30A. Collection of data, assessment of progress and revision of targets 78-85 30B. Publication of the data collected and of the evaluation .............. 86-87 32C. Preparation and submission of national summary reports

to the Meeting of the Parties ....................................................... 88-89 32

PART TWOOPTIONS FOR SETTING TARGETS AND INDICATORS

UNDER ARTICLE 6, PARAGRAPH 2 (A) TO (N)

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 90-93 34


CONTENTS (continued) Paragraphs Page

A. Targets areas and targets related indicators: issues to be considered.................................................................................... 93-96 35

B. Common indicators ..................................................................... 97-103 35C. Relevant regional and global obligations and recommendation

on reporting ................................................................................. 101-103 37

I. QUALITY OF THE DRINKING WATER SUPPLIED (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (a))............................................................................ 104-109 37A. Background rationale .................................................................. 104 37B. List of issues to be considered for the process of target-setting. . 105 37C. Related common indicators.......................................................... 106-107 40D. Relevant global and regional obligations and reporting.............. 108-109 41

II. REDUCTION OF THE SCALE OF OUTBREAKS AND INCIDENTS OF WATER-RELATED DISEASE (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (b)).................................................................................110-116 41A. Background rationale................................................................... 110 41B. List of issues to be considered for the process of target-setting. . 112 41C. Related common indicators.......................................................... 113 42D Relevant regional and global obligations and recommendations

on reporting.................................................................................. 114-116 43

III. ACCESS TO DRINKING WATER (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (c))................. 117-123 44A. Background rationale................................................................... 117-118 44B. List of issues to be considered for the process of target-setting. . 119 44C. Related common indicators.......................................................... 120 45D Relevant regional and global obligations and recommendations

on reporting.................................................................................. 121-123 46

IV. ACCESS TO SANITATION (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (d))............................. 124-129 46A. Background rationale................................................................... 124 46B. List of issues to be considered for the process of target-setting. . 125 47C. Related common indicators.......................................................... 126 48D Relevant regional and global obligations and recommendations

on reporting.................................................................................. 127-129 48


CONTENTS (continued)

Paragraphs Page

V. LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE OF COLLECTIVE SYSTEMS ANDOTHER SYSTEMS FOR WATER SUPPLY (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (e)).... 130-132 49A. Background rationale................................................................... 130 49B. List of issues to be considered for the process of target-setting. . 131 49C. Relevant global and regional obligations and reporting systems. 132 49

VI. LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE OF COLLECTIVE SYSTEMS ANDOTHER SYSTEMS FOR SANITATION (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (e) (cont.)) 133-136 50A. Background rationale................................................................... 133-134 50B. List of issues to be considered for the process of target-setting. . 135 50C. Relevant global and regional obligations and reporting systems. 136 51

VII. APPLICATION OF RECOGNIZED GOOD PRACTICES TO THE MANAGEMENT OF WATER SUPPLY (ART. 6, PARA 2 (f)).............................................................................. 137-142 51A. Background rationale................................................................... 137 51B. List of issues to be considered for the process of target-setting. . 138-141 52C. Relevant global and regional obligations and recommendations

on reporting.................................................................................. 142 53

VIII. APPLICATION OF RECOGNIZED GOOD PRACTICES TO THE MANAGEMENT OF SANITATION (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (f) (cont.))..... 143-147 53A. List of issues to be considered for the process of target-setting. . 143 53B. Relevant global and regional obligations and recommendations

on reporting.................................................................................. 144-147 53

IX. OCCURANCE OF DISCHARGES OF UNTREATED WASTEWATER(ART. 6, PARA. 2 (g)(i))......................................................................... 148-152 54A. Background rationale................................................................... 148 54B. List of issues to be considered for the process of target-setting. . 149 54C. Relevant regional and global obligations and recommendations

on reporting.................................................................................. 150-152 55

X. OCCURANCE OF DISCHARGES OF UNTREATED STORM WATEROVERFLOWS FROM WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS TO WATERS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PROTOCOL (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (g)(ii))........................................................................ 153-156 55


CONTENTS (continued)

Paragraphs Page

A. Background rationale................................................................... 153 55B. List of issues to be considered for the process of target-setting. . 154-155 55C. Relevant global and regional obligations and reporting.............. 156 56

XI. QUALITY OF DISCHARGES OF WASTEWATER FROM WASTEWATER TREATMENT INSTALLATIONS TOWATERS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PROTOCOL(ART. 6, PARA. 2 (h))............................................................................. 157-160 56A. Background rationale................................................................... 157 56B. List of issues to be considered for the process of target-setting. . 158 57C. Relevant regional and global obligations and reporting systems. 159-160 58

XII. DISPOSAL OR REUSE OF SEWAGE SLUDGE FROM COLLECTIVE SYSTEMS OF SANITATION OR OTHER SANITATION INSTALLATIONS (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (i), first part)............................. 161-165 58A. Background rationale................................................................... 161 58B. List of issues to be considered for the process of target-setting. . 162 59C. Relevant global and regional obligations and reporting.............. 163-165 59

XIII. QUALITY OF WASTEWATER USED FOR IRRIGATION PURPOSES(ART. 6, PARA. 2 (i), second part)......................................................... 166-172 60A. Background rationale................................................................... 166-168 60B. List of issues to be considered for the process of target-setting. . 169 60C. Relevant global and regional obligations and reporting.............. 170-172 61

XIV. QUALITY OF WATER WHICH ARE USED AS SOURCES FOR DRINKING WATER (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (j), first part).......................... 173-176 62A. Background rationale................................................................... 173 62B. List of issues to be considered for the process of target-setting. . 174 62C. Relevant regional and global obligations and reporting systems. 175-176 63

XV. QUALITY OF WATERS USED FOR BATHING(ART. 6, PARA. 2 (j), second part)......................................................... 177-186 64A. Background rationale................................................................... 177 64B. List of issues to be considered for the process of target-setting. . 178 64C. Relevant regional and global obligations and reporting systems. 179-186 65


CONTENTS (continued) Paragraphs Page

XVI. QUALITY OF WATERS USED FOR AQUACULTURE OR FOR THE PRODUCTION OR HARVESTING SHELLFISH (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (j), third part)............................................................ 187-189 69A. Background rationale................................................................... 187 69B. List of issues to be considered for the process of target-setting. . 188 69C. Relevant regional and global obligations and reporting systems. 189 70

XVII. APPLICATION OF RECOGNIZED GOOD PRACTICETO THE MANAGEMENT OF ENCLOSED WATERS GENERALLYAVAILIBLE FOR BATHING (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (k)............................ 191-196 70A. Background rationale................................................................... 191-194 70B. List of issues to be considered for the process of target-setting. . 195 72C. Relevant global and regional obligations and reporting.............. 196 73

XVIII. IDENTIFICATION AND REMEDIATION OF PARTICULARLYCONTAMINATED SITES (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (l))................................ 197-202 74A. Background rationale................................................................... 197 74B. List of issues to be considered for the process of target-setting. . 198-200 74C. Relevant global and regional obligations and reporting.............. 201-202 76

XIX. EFFECTIVENESS OF SYSTEMS FOR THE MANAGEMENT, DEVELOPMENT, PROTECTION AND USE OF WATERRESOURCES (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (m))................................................... 203-212 76A. Background rationale................................................................... 203-205 76B. List of issues to be considered for the process of target-setting. . 206 77C. Related common indicators.......................................................... 207-209 81D. Relevant global and regional obligations and reporting.............. 210-212 81

XX. FREQUENCY OF PUBLICATION OF INFORMATIONON THE QUALITY OF DRINKING WATER SUPPLIEDAND OF OTHER WATERS RELEVANT TO THE PROTOCOL (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (n)) ............................................................................ 213-215 81A. Background rationale................................................................... 213 81B. Relevant regional and global obligations and reporting.............. 214-215 82

Annex

Examples of relevant international obligations........................................ 83


INTRODUCTION

1. The Protocol on Water and Health requires Parties to establish and publish national and/or local targets for the standards and levels of performance that need to be achieved or maintained for a high level of protection of human health and well-being as well as for the sustainable management of water resources. Paragraph 2 (a) to (n) of article 6 of the Protocol identifies the general areas within which the targets should be set (table 1). Furthermore, according to article 7, Parties shall collect and evaluate data on their progress towards the achievement of the targets and on indicators designed to show how far that progress has contributed towards preventing, controlling or reducing water-related disease.

Table 1. Areas in which setting targets is required by article 6 of the Protocol

(a) The quality of the drinking water supplied

(b) The reduction of the scale of outbreaks and incidents of water-related disease

(c) The area of territory, or the population sizes or proportions, which should be served by collective systems for the supply of drinking water or where the supply of drinking water by other means should be improved

(d) The area of territory, or the population sizes or proportions, which should be served by collective systems of sanitation or where sanitation by other means should be improved

(e) The levels of performance to be achieved by such collective systems and by such other means of water supply and sanitation respectively

(f) The application of recognized good practice to the management of water supply and sanitation, including the protection of waters used as sources for drinking water

(g) The occurrence of discharges of:

(i) Untreated wastewater from wastewater collection systems to waters within the scope of this Protocol

(ii) Untreated storm water overflows from wastewater collection systems to waters within the scope of this Protocol

(h) The quality of discharges of wastewater from wastewater treatment installations to waters within the scope of this Protocol

(i) The disposal or reuse of sewage sludge from collective systems of sanitation or other sanitation installations and the quality of wastewater used for irrigation purposes, taking into account the Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater and excreta in agriculture and aquaculture of the World Health Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme

(j) The quality of waters which are used as sources for drinking water, which are generally used for bathing or which are used for aquaculture or for the production or harvesting of shellfish

(k) The application of recognized good practice to the management of enclosed waters generally available for bathing

(l) The identification and remediation of particularly contaminated sites which adversely affect waters within the


scope of this Protocol or are likely to do so and which thus threaten to give rise to water-related disease

(m) The effectiveness of systems for the management, development, protection and use of water resources, including the application of recognized good practice to the control of pollution from sources of all kinds

(n) The frequency of the publication of information on the quality of the drinking water supplied and of other waters relevant to the targets in this paragraph in the intervals between the publications of information under article 7, paragraph 2

A. OBJECTIVES AND TARGET GROUPS

2. The main objective of these Guidelines is to facilitate the implementation of the Protocol on Water and Health. In particular, the Guidelines illustrate the steps that need to be taken and aspects that should be considered when setting targets, implementing relevant measures and reporting on the progress achieved with respect to protecting human health and well-being and the sustainable management of water resources, in accordance with articles 6 and 7 of the Protocol.

3. Moreover, the Guidelines offer some practical examples based on Parties’ experience, illustrate a variety of possible targets that can be set in accordance with the Protocol and provide a source of inspiration, information and assistance for Parties that are currently undergoing or are planning to initiate the process of target-setting.

4. When following the general framework proposed by these Guidelines, Parties need to be aware that, to be effective, the framework always needs to be adjusted to the specific circumstances of the national and/or local context.

5. The Guidelines are intended for those responsible at the national and local levels for setting targets and target dates. The Guidelines do not enter into the technical details of all the issues related to the implementation of the Protocol, but rather seek to provide a strategic framework for the target-setting process.

B. BACKGROUND RATIONALE

6. Problems related to management of water resources, water supply, sanitation and health are scattered across different policy sectors and call for close cooperation among various authorities at the policy as well as the management levels. Setting national targets under the Protocol creates a platform for discussion and promotes coherence, harmonization and integration between different sectors, bringing together different stakeholders (such as governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the scientific community, the private sector and the general public). The process of target-setting also provides a vertical communication channel between different levels of administrations (from local to national) and helps translate national targets into the local context.

7. The target-setting process offers a framework to analyse the national situation, streamline and harmonize responsibilities and commitments in the areas of water and health. Based on this


analysis, a realistic plan for improvement with prioritized time-bound targets adapted to the national situation can be elaborated.

8. By setting targets, Parties are encouraged to tailor their responses to the country-specific problems and to take a holistic approach to address them. The process of setting targets helps focus attention on the services and actions needed, including communications to stakeholders and the general public about the expected outcomes and results.

9. Clearly defined national targets can be used by national and local authorities as a basis for the allocation of resources. Clearly established and politically endorsed targets can also be a sound basis for requests for international assistance, enhancing possibilities of access to international funding.

10. In particular, the Ad Hoc Project Facilitation Mechanism, established under the Protocol to facilitate coordination and assistance as required by article 15, provides a useful framework for countries to request support in setting their targets and target dates and in successfully implementing activities to reach them.

11. Implementation of the Protocol, and in particular target-setting, can be a useful tool to support implementation and compliance of international obligations. Parties should see the Protocol within the broad framework of the other international commitments closely related to it. Annex 1 provides a (non-comprehensive) list of relevant international instruments.

12. In particular, for European Union (EU) countries, the implementation of the Protocol and of the EU Directives and regulations can be mutually supportive. Setting targets can be a tool to pursue compliance with EU Directives. Moreover, setting targets can allow progress in subject areas that are not regulated by the EU, in accordance with national priorities and the resources available.

13. Ultimately, by presenting environment and health information in a more integrated manner, the process of target-setting will allow for a better understanding of the water and health nexus and the cause-consequence chain. It can thus contribute to reversing the present situation in which inadequate policies, planning or management practices may have conflicting objectives and approaches, sometimes resulting in restricted access to safe drinking water and sanitation as well as serious threats to human health and the environment.


Figure I. Relationship between the water cycle and areas under article 6

Water resources

Water supply Sanitation

The quality of the drinking water supplied(article 6 (2) (a))

Access to sanitation (article 6 (2) (d))

The levels of performance for sanitation(article 6 (2) (e) cont’d)

Application of good practice to the management of sanitation(article 6 (2) (f)) (cont’d)

Occurrence of discharges of untreated wastewater(article 6 (2) (g) (i))

Occurrence of discharges of untreated storm water overflows(…)

Quality of discharges of waste water (article 6 (2) (h))

Disposal or reuse of sewage sludge (article 6 (2) (i), first part)

Quality of waste water used for irrigation purposes(article 6 (2) (i), second part)

Quality of waters used for bathing(article 6 (2) (j), second part)

Quality of waters used for aquaculture and shellfish(article 6 (2) (j), third part)

Application of good practice to the management of enclosed waters (article 6 (2) (k))

Effectiveness of management, development, protection and use of water resources (article 6 (2) (m))

Application of good practice to the management of water supply(article 6 (2) (f))

Quality of waters which are used as sources for drinking water (article 6 (2) (j), first part)

Identification and remediation of particularly contaminated sites(article 6 (2) (l))

Access to drinking water(article 6 (2) (c))

The levels of performance for water supply (article 6 (2) (e))

The reduction of the scale of outbreaks and incidents of water related disease (article 6 (2) (b))

Water resources

Water supply Sanitation

Water resources

Water supplyWater supply SanitationSanitation

The quality of the drinking water supplied(article 6 (2) (a))

Access to sanitation (article 6 (2) (d))

The levels of performance for sanitation(article 6 (2) (e) cont’d)

Application of good practice to the management of sanitation(article 6 (2) (f)) (cont’d)

Occurrence of discharges of untreated wastewater(article 6 (2) (g) (i))

Occurrence of discharges of untreated storm water overflows(…)

Quality of discharges of waste water (article 6 (2) (h))

Disposal or reuse of sewage sludge (article 6 (2) (i), first part)

Quality of waste water used for irrigation purposes(article 6 (2) (i), second part)

Quality of waters used for bathing(article 6 (2) (j), second part)

Quality of waters used for aquaculture and shellfish(article 6 (2) (j), third part)

Application of good practice to the management of enclosed waters (article 6 (2) (k))

Effectiveness of management, development, protection and use of water resources (article 6 (2) (m))

Application of good practice to the management of water supply(article 6 (2) (f))





Access to drinking water(article 6 (2) (c))

The levels of performance for water supply (article 6 (2) (e))

The reduction of the scale of outbreaks and incidents of water related disease (article 6 (2) (b))

14. The Guidelines are composed of the following parts:

(a) Part one: the main steps for setting targets, reviewing progress and reporting;

(b) Part two: options for setting targets and indicators under article 6, paragraph 2 (a) to (n).


PART ONE

MAIN STEPS FOR SETTING TARGETS, REVIEWING PROGRESS AND REPORTING

I. Key issues to be considered when setting targets under the Protocol on Water and Health

15. The targets for the standards and the level of performance that need to be achieved or maintained shall be established and published at the national and/or local levels. Except where national or local circumstances make them irrelevant for human health and sustainable water management, the targets shall cover the areas described under the article 6, paragraphs 2 (a) to (n), of the Protocol.

16. Moreover, depending on the specific circumstances, Parties might wish to set targets in areas that are not listed in article 6 of the Protocol, in order to address their national and/or local problems.

17. As the situations among Parties to the Protocol vary for each country, the nature and level of ambition in target-setting under each specific area may also be very different. The objective of target-setting and reporting is not to compare Parties with each other, but to assist Parties in developing integrated national strategies on water and health, a roadmap for their implementation, means to measure progress achieved and the possibility to learn from each others.

18. Targets should be tailored to Parties’ needs and capacities from the health, environmental, social and economic points of view. Although article 6 of the Protocol clearly indicates the specific thematic areas for which targets should be set, it does not impose any common targets for the Parties to the Protocol. When doing its baseline and gap analysis, each Party needs to analyse its specific national and local conditions, main problems related to water and health nexus and resources available. Targets and target dates need to be set in accordance with such analysis.

19. However, for the sake of regional harmonization, Parties have decided to make use of commonly agreed indicators for consistent reporting under the Protocol.

20. In setting targets, Parties should strive for comprehensiveness. Developing an integrated understanding of water, environment and health issues is the main objective of the Protocol and its greatest added value.

21. When setting targets and target dates, Parties should be guided by the principles and approaches of article 5 of the Protocol.

22. When choosing their targets Parties should take into account sustainability as well as economic aspects (such as cost-benefit analysis).


23. Targets set in different areas should be based on a holistic view of the issues and aim at achieving an integrated objective. Different combinations of targets can enable achievement of the same results and Parties should decide on the basis of their specific situations.

24. At the same time, Parties should take into account the fact that progress in one area is closely related to progress in other ones. For instance, to maximize prevention of water-related disease, Parties will at the same time need to work on access to safe water, improved sanitation and hygiene standards. Thus, the combination of targets set should be coherent and targets set in different areas should support each other in achieving the overall goals of the Protocol.

25. Target-setting, evaluating and reporting should be seen as an iterative process that takes into account new information as it becomes available. A main advantage of iterative target-setting is the possibility of adopting a step-wise approach, allowing for incremental improvement.

26. Depending on the country situation, the scope and scale of targets under each specific area may vary significantly. Targets may focus on the regulatory level (e.g. development and/or implementation of new water and health regulations or better enforcement of existing regulations), on the establishment or enhancement of available information (e.g. improved inventory systems) or on practical measures (e.g. development of river basin management plans, construction of wastewater treatment plants and enhancement of network of laboratories).

27. Targets can be set at the national and/or local levels. When national targets are set, special attention is necessary to ensure that they are properly reflected at the local level and that they encompass the areas with the main problems.

28. In the case of transboundary waters, targets at the national and local levels should also take into account the transboundary dimension. This implies that targets at the level of the river basins should be discussed and agreed upon between riparian countries and that national and local targets should take such transboundary objectives into account.

29. When setting targets, Parties should take into account climate change and its impacts on the whole water cycle. The process of setting targets offers a good opportunity for identification of potential risks related to the changing environment. Moreover, the process of setting targets could provide basis for introduction of long term objectives and adequate adaptation strategies. The Protocol’s provisions and its flexibility make it a great tool to use for addressing emerging issues related to climate change.

Table 2. Climate change impact on water within the scope of the Protocol

Natural event Impact Protocol Provisions Increased temperature

Lower oxygen concentration, hence lower self-purification capacity of surface water.

Longer algal season and earlier bloom.Penetration of toxic (tropic or semi-tropic)

opportunistic invaders in virgin ecosystems.

Quality of drinking water to conform to the World Health Organization (WHO) Guidelines for Drinking water Quality (6.2.a)


Natural event Impact Protocol Provisions Impact on survival of micro-organisms in

drinking water distribution systems.Changing hydraulic regimes

Floods challenge storm water overflows, treatment systems, and continued operation of water supply and sanitation systems

Droughts especially in the Mediterranean and Central Asia create:- New paradigm of integrated water

resources management (IWRM)- Increased concentrations of pollution

require better treatment options and better protection

- Better protection and sustainable exploitation of groundwater resources

Discharges of untreated storm water overflows (6.2.g)

Protection of water used as source of drinking water (4.2.a. and c; 6.2.f)

Quality of discharge from wastewater treatment plants (6.2.h.)

Reuse of wastewater treatment sludge in accordance with WHO and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Guidelines 6.2.i.

Quality of waters used for drinking water (6.2.j.)

Secondary impacts of quality change

Higher temperatures and decreasing freshwater quality can lead to:- A decrease in the quality of recipient

recreational waters- Proliferation of toxic micro-organisms

can influence the quality of the food chain, particularly aquaculture.

Quality of waters used for bathing 6.2.j.Quality of waters generally used for bathing or aquacultureor the cultivation ofshellfish (6.2.j)

Secondary impacts of changed ecosystems

Improved breeding grounds for disease carrying vectors

Art. 8: Outbreak detection, contingency and response systems

Health Immediate impact of flooding, heat waves, etc.Outbreak of waterborne diseasesOutbreak of vectorborne diseases

Art. 8: Outbreak detection, contingency and response systems.

30. The Protocol encourages Parties to set targets at the national and local levels. No real progress can be achieved under the Protocol without actions at the local level, thus the national and local activities on setting targets should be intertwined, where the local targets would contribute to achieving the national ones and vice versa. The existing structures at the basin and sub-basin levels should be used for establishing a dialogue with all relevant stakeholders.

31. In target-setting, Parties should take into account that all targets need to be assessable either by quantitative or qualitative indicators. According to article 7 of the Protocol, Parties shall collect data that allow a meaningful evaluation of progress towards the achievement of targets. Based on this collection and progress evaluation, Parties are required to provide a summary report to the secretariat and for circulation among other Parties that assesses the progress achieved.


32. As target-setting and reporting are among the main obligations under the Protocol, they constitute subject to review of compliance in accordance with the Protocol’s article 15. When setting targets, Parties should thus carefully assess their “achievability” and the measures needed to reach the targets.

33. When selecting targets and indicators, Parties need to take into account existing legal obligations, monitoring systems, and international and national reporting systems.

II. Setting targets

34. The way Parties conduct the process of setting targets will to a large extent depend on specific national/local conditions; however, there are some general steps that should be considered by all Parties when setting targets and implementing relevant measures. The figure below illustrates the overall framework of the process.

Figure II. Logical framework for the process of setting targets


Review and assessment of progress and reporting

Stakeholder involvement

Revision of targets

Identification of key stakeholdersSetting up a coordination mechanism

Baseline analysisEnvironmental and health situation (water quantity /

quality, diseases etc.)Existing legal framework

(national and international)

Identification and prioritization of problems

Final agreement on targets and their publication and communication to all stakeholders

Implementation of the programme of measures

Agreement on draft targets, programme of measures and indicators

Broad consultation on proposed targets and relevant programme of measures


A. Identification of key stakeholders and setting up of a coordination mechanism

35. In accordance with article 6, paragraph 5 (a), Parties to the Protocol shall establish national or local arrangements for coordination between their competent authorities in order to set targets. The process of target-setting should be led by the main competent authority(ies) (e.g. depending on national setting, the Ministry of Health and/or Environment), in close cooperation with other concerned stakeholders responsible for the overall implementation of the Protocol.

36. The main stakeholders and key players concerned with implementation of the Protocol should be identified. These include: (a) ministries; (b) national, federal, provincial and local (both urban and rural) authorities; (c) existing working groups/committees concerned with water and health issues; (d) associations and organizations of public or private service providers (e.g. water and sanitation suppliers, wastewater removers); (e) research institutes; (e) academia, professional associations in the areas of health, environment and water; and (f) representatives of finance, tourism, agriculture, the economy or development as well as representatives of the public (e.g. through consumer associations or NGOs). Some stakeholder groups may not be easily involved as their organizational structures are unknown or non-existent (e.g. small drinking water suppliers or private well owners). Thus, additional efforts should be made to involve them in the process.

37. The activities related to the overall implementation of the Protocol are often conducted by large number of national agencies under different ministries. In many countries a triggering of the decision-making process of setting targets needs to occur at the highest governmental level, e.g. the Cabinet of the Prime Minister. Moreover, in order to maintain the political support and secure funding, Parities should strive to involve the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Finance/the Economy.

38. The stakeholders and key players should be presented with the Protocol’s provisions in order to create a common understanding. It needs to be made clear to all involved that the Protocol is a legally binding instrument.

39. In order to bring together all stakeholders concerned with the process of target-setting and to create an appropriate coordination mechanism, depending on the country’s institutional set-up, either use could be made of existing structures and networks or a specific, inter-ministerial committee/working group could be established.

40. The coordination mechanism responsible for target-setting and its composition might need to be expanded during the process, for instance if it becomes clear that additional expertise is required or that some stakeholders have not been included.

41. The following aspects need to be considered when creating the coordination mechanism:

(a) The terms of reference of the coordination mechanism, its mandate and thedistribution of responsibilities should be clearly defined;


(b) The composition of the coordination mechanism should cover all expertise needed in the target-setting process and should in particular aim at involving representatives of the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Development as well as high-level representation (e.g. from the cabinet of Prime Minister). The committee/working group should also include representatives of key stakeholders (as identified in paragraph 36 above);

(c) Specific sub-groups might be established (e.g. for bathing, economic issues, agriculture and water protection issues);

(d) When initiating the setting of targets, Parties should be aware that it is a long process that can take up to several years. Therefore, to ensure continuous progress in complying with the Protocol and setting targets within two years of becoming a Party, sustained institutional support needs to be ensured and a clear agenda and a work programme, with time-bound objectives, need to be established;

(e) The coordination mechanism should have both the human and financial resources to allow for its proper functioning. For this, an evaluation of the work ahead and of the resources needed have to be done and the necessary funds should be allocated to the relevant budget(s).

Box 1. Organization of target-setting in Hungary

The Hungarian case presents a good example of how the cross-sectoral cooperation required for the implementation of the Protocol was achieved. The Government established a technical committee to assist the ministers in meeting their commitments. The committee included a wide pool of experts allowing it to cover all fields of the Protocol (e.g. from ministries and government agencies for public health, environment and water management, local and regional development, economy and transport, agriculture, industry, national development, as well as a representative from the Prime Minister’s office, agriculture, industry, national development, regions and municipalities, relevant associations of waterworks, sewage works, poos and spas, tourism, environmental NGOs and other interest groups). Even if of a technical nature, the committee had a clear political mandate. Resources were secured for its functioning and it was linked with other governmental programmes and plans relevant to the Protocol. It was a formal body with its own constitution and terms of reference that were formally approved by the responsible minister. However, it was flexible enough to make use of external experts and to exchange information with other bodies (e.g. scientific committees whose work was relevant for setting and implementing targets under the Protocol).

B. Baseline analysis

B. Baseline analysis

42. The implementation of the Protocol does not start from scratch, but should build on the ongoing and planned efforts related to the Protocol.


43. A baseline analysis should be carried out for each specific target area of paragraph 2 (a) to (n) under the Protocol’s article 6.

44. Based on existing or compiled inventories of relevant information (for the purposes of the Protocol), a baseline analysis should be made that encompasses a systematic and thorough review and assessment of:

(a) Relevant national and international legal provisions and regulations, including transboundary waters agreements (the annex to this document lists examples of relevant international obligations);

(b) Strategies and goals set by different authorities and other stakeholders on issues related to the specific target area;

(c) Relevant activities, projects and research, such as those related to improving water quality and water supply systems, water protection and treatment, health surveillance and early warning, or to dissemination of information at the national and local levels;

(d) Available data sources and their completeness;

(e) The indicators used;

(f) Information on the current water-related environmental and health situation in the country;

(g) Information on projected impacts of climate change on water and health and results of vulnerability analysis 2 (reference to the guidelines on water and adaptation to climate change);

(h) Data (summaries/reports) relevant for each target area under consideration;

(i) Expert judgement on the issues related to the specific target area;

(j) Linkages between connected thematic areas (e.g. drinking water quality with water resources management and sanitation).

Box 2. Rapid assessment of drinking water quality

The target-setting process requires adequate data and information at several steps, particularly for baseline analysis, the identification and prioritization of problems and the formulation of targets and respective programmes of measures.

Rapid assessment of drinking water quality (RADWQ) is an example of a specific

2 For more on this issue, please refer to the Guidelines on Water and Climate Adaptation developed under the Convention


assessment tool. It provides a systematic and statistically representative “snapshot” of the drinking water quality situation in a given country or at any subnational level. RADWQ studies use intensive field work in a limited time span (i.e. of 4–6 months) to collect one-off sanitary inspection data and water quality data for a limited number of health-relevant (i.e. chemical and microbial) water quality parameters from a sample of statistically representative water supplies. A maximum of 1,600 water supplies are typically included in a study, and the key elements of the RADWQ survey design method ensure that:

(a) Different parts of a country are adequately represented (geographical spread);(b) The selection of water supply technologies to be included reflects their importance;(c) In the selection of water supplies, a random element is introduced; (d) By adopting a cluster sampling strategy, the study is sufficiently practical as well as

cost and time effective.

An analysis of RADWQ findings is useful for improving the knowledge and understanding of drinking water situation in a country. A RADWQ study provides useful baseline information, for example: (a) to assess compliance with existing drinking water quality standards/guidelines; (b) to study prevalence of specific parameters of concern (e.g. arsenic or fluoride); (c) to identify most common sanitary risks; and (d) to check compliance for a particular type of water supply or to assess the public health risks to the population. The results of RADWQ assist in defining needs and long-term programmes for building national water quality surveillance capacities and provide a basis for identifying priorities for remedial and preventative action to improve the drinking water quality situation. The RADWQ tool has been successfully piloted in several countries.

C. Identification and prioritization of problems

45. Analysis of the data on the water and health situation should help to identify specific problematic areas, such as insufficient quality of drinking water, or bathing water, the lack of access to sanitation and wastewater treatment for a significant part of the population, unsustainable use of water resources, or the health-related impacts of climate change. Based on the results of the baseline analysis, for each specific target area a preliminary assessment of key issues and problems should be made.

46. Baseline analysis will assist Parties in identifying issues that require focus and attention. In problem identification and prioritization, Parties need to address specific problems, unmet needs or concrete issues, inter alia:

(a) Assessment of compliance/non-compliance with relevant legislation and regulations (e.g. regarding drinking water quality, wastewater treatment, waste management or agricultural practices) and, in the case of non-compliance, analysis of the reason for this situation;

(b) Identification of gaps in regulations, monitoring and management systems, or information inventories;

(c) Identification of issues where a direct health impact is proven or can be expected;


(d) Identification of priority issues at the State or local level, with a particular focus on rural areas.

47. Determining the magnitude of problems at different levels will support the prioritization of problems, i.e. decisions about what level of ambition targets should be set and about when and how targets should be reached.

D. Agreement on draft targets, programme of measures and indicators

48. On the basis of the previous steps, possible targets and target dates should be discussed and agreed upon by the concerned stakeholders within the coordination mechanism.

49. Targets should be understood in a very broad sense and not necessarily as quantifiable parameters only. A target is a commitment made to achieve a specific level of protection of human health and water resources, quality or service. Clear targets enable a focus on efforts and benchmark progress. Clear targets also provide the basis for developing continuous improvement strategies. If a situation is considered satisfactory, the target could be to maintain the current level of performance and results.

50. It should be noticed that, in accordance with article 7, paragraph 5, of the Protocol, Parties are obliged to report on their progress achieved towards reaching their targets. Thus, as part of the target-setting process, suitable quantitative and/or qualitative indicators need to be identified to measure progress towards targets.

51. The two types of indicators – quantitative and qualitative – are complementary and both are important for effective monitoring and evaluation as they can cross-validate and point out problems with each other. In choosing an indicator, the most important elements to consider are its reliability and validity. Reliability means that the indicator used must be accurate and consistent. Validity means that the information the indicators provide must be close to the reality they are measuring. Generally accepted criteria for good indicators are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bound.

52. Table 2 below shows the options for choosing targets and indicators, depending on the results of the baseline and gap analysis and the situations in the countries.


Table 2. Possible options for choosing targets and indicators

Problems/constraints/unmet needs identified by baseline and gap analysis

Possible targets Possible indicators

Legal and institutional issues: - “Thematic” gaps in

regulation - Lack of national/local

standards- Insufficient institutional

capacities - Lack of enforcement

Revision of legal and institutional frameworks: - Development/amendment

of water code - Establishment of water

quality standards- Creation/improvement of

surveillance system- Compliance with specific

law- Provision of incentives for

compliance

- Existence of legal acts (e.g. existence of policies, strategies, executive acts)

- Existence of surveillance system

Lack of sound and reliable information, e.g. on the status of the water supply and sanitation services at the national or local level

Improved knowledge on the current situation: - Establishment of

information inventory; - Implementation of a rapid

assessment

- Existing information inventory

Limited access to improved drinking water supply or wastewater disposal facilities or services

- Increase of access to improved technologies by XX per cent

- Population coverage with access to improved water supply and sanitation technologies

Management issues: - Poor managerial

procedures- Insufficient human

(untrained staff) and technical resources

- Poor quality management (poor management practices, bad planning)

- Poor maintenance strategies

Effective managerial system:- Capacity-building for staff- Creation of general and

technical guidelines- Improved payment and

selection of staff- Performance control of

management- Improved maintenance

procedures

- Number of hours/programmes of training provided

- Existence of good practices, managerial guidelines, technical specifications

- Sufficient (quality and quantity) human resources

- Number of water authorities with performance control

monitoring issues: - Poor monitoring procedure

guidelines - Insufficient human and

Availability of reliable data:- Introduce system for data

quality control- Extend monitoring system

- Existence of monitoring procedures (national indicators)


technical resources - Poor monitoring

verification

geographically or to other pollutants

- Training of staff

- Existence of country-wide monitoring system that covers major pollutants (e.g. those under common indicators)

- Improved quality control procedures

53. For EU countries, several targets set may be closely related to existing EU requirements. Targets established under the Protocol can support and complement implementation of EU Directives in different ways, i.e. by:

(a) Improving compliance. In the case that a Party faces problems with compliance with specific obligations under the EU acquis communautaire, by setting targets it can develop a strategy to progressively improve such compliance;

(b) Complementing obligations of EU Directives. Parties may establish either more detailed or specific targets that go beyond current requirements of EU legislation or additional targets in areas that are currently not covered by EU legislation and which nevertheless are needed to address national problems.

Box 3. Possible relation between implementation of European Union Directives and the Protocol

Example 1: In its reporting under the EU Drinking Water Directive, Party A frequently observes problems of non-compliance related to naturally occurring fluoride. Under the Protocol, it sets the target to reduce non-compliance figures by X percent per year and to develop a plan of remedial measures to reach its target. Remedial measures under consideration include: (a) development and introduction of low-cost and robust treatment technologies; (b) change of source waters in regions where this is feasible; and (c) information to the population communicating the risks regarding fluoride intake from drinking water.

Example 2: Under the EU Drinking Water Directive, specific obligations are set for water supplies serving more than 50 people. In Party B, a significant proportion of the population in the rural areas is served by private or community wells serving less than 50 persons. These wells are currently not regulated in Party B. Moreover, anecdotal evidence suggests that the quality of water supplied in these supplies is less good than for bigger centralized systems. Thus, Party B might decide to set a variety of targets related to private or community wells that would incrementally improve the situation in the long term. Examples of individual targets may include: (a) formulation of regulations, in addition to current EU requirements, which specify specific quality and surveillance requirements; (b) establishing a water quality information inventory for those supplies that enables a regular review of commonly faced problems; and (c) improving good practices in operation, maintenance and inspection of such supplies through development of technical guidance materials, professional support mechanisms and adequate training programmes, for example.


54. A successful process of target-setting and the enforcement of targets will depend, among other factors, on the following minimum conditions:

(a) Established legal framework with clear provisions in relation to respective targets;

(b) Effective and well-resourced institutions that practically enforce measures towards meeting respective targets;

(c) Effective mechanisms for data collection and analysis which enable an evaluation and, if necessary, redirection of implementation strategies.

55. Each set of targets needs to be linked to a clearly defined set of concrete measures. The implementation of the programme of measures will ultimately guarantee that the target is achieved. To be effective, each measure needs to be bound with concrete timelines, clearly defined responsibilities for implementation and sufficient allocation of personnel, technical and financial resources.

56. In the target-setting process, it is of key importance that the formulation of targets and respective measures planned is realistic in terms of achievability. Effective targets should always encourage for improved performance and should motivate stakeholders. Targets that are too difficult debilitate rather than motivate. Targets that are too easy often lead to complacency.

57. In target-setting, therefore, there is an inherent need to be realistic. Feasibility analysis will assist in identifying realistic targets and programs of measures. The following aspects should carefully be considered during the whole target-setting process:

(a) Availability of know-how and financial, institutional, technical and personnel resources;

(b) Technical achievability and feasibility of remedial measures envisaged;

(c) Financial implications and cost-effectiveness ratios of individual measures envisaged;

(d) Achievability of timelines;

(e) Review of likely prospects of success of implementing remedial measures;

(f) Complementarities with other existing strategies/projects;

(g) Social acceptability.

58. As available resources are frequently limited, it is important to identify priorities in terms of target-setting. Various options in target formulation and in defining respective programs of measures should be reviewed in terms of priority, using one or more of the following criteria:


(a) Contribution to the reduction of water-related disease burden;

(b) Contribution to the reduction of inequalities (e.g. urban vs. rural);

(c) Technical and financial feasibility of target achievement;

(d) Cost-effectiveness ratios of individual targets;

(e) Environmental sustainability.

59. In optimum, targets that address the greatest risk to public health and maximize efficiency and sustainability of the use of available resources will receive highest priority and political attention.

60. As resources towards target achievement are frequently limited, targets should always be defined by adopting a step-wise approach that allows for incremental improvements over time. In a step-wise approach, Parties may define targets and programmes of measures to be taken in the short, medium, and long term. While some short-term targets will be actionable immediately and may require limited costs, other long-term targets may need to be addressed over time as they require additional resources. Adopting such an approach will allow Parties to give priority to targets that can be realistically achieved in the short term and to revisit other or complementary targets in the following iteration cycle of target-setting.

Box 4. Setting targets at the national and local levels

One of the challenges that Parties face when setting targets is the correlation between the targets to be set at different national and local levels. Issues that need to be tackled include: (a) the lack of correspondence between the political and administrative boundaries and river-basins’ geographical limits; and (b) the lack of “geographical visibility” for underground water bodies. Further difficulties exist within the boundaries of a Party: regional or more local differences are often explicit in administrative, political, social terms, and with subsequent consensus, priorities and arbitrages are needed at the national level. Finally, the complexity of the situation is also linked with difference in local “water cultures”, water uses, sensitivities and expectations along the course of a given river. Of particular relevance are the differences in land occupation and urbanization levels within a given river basin, with its implications in terms of watercourse protection.

An increasing mobilization of local State services is unavoidable: large water basin and sub-basin levels are structural elements that should be the basis for dialogue construction, creating when necessary the suitable water coordination bodies, as is already often the case. It is important to keep a link between these proposed local structures and the international commissions for river management when they do exist. Such bodies should involve local politico-administrative stakeholders, since they will be the front liners of future implementation of the Protocol. Parties should make their best efforts to involve representatives of all relevant sectors and the related administrations, which need to be effectively mobilized if Parties want to meet their targets in terms of water quantity as well as water quality. When they are in place, river basin authorities could be used as front liners.

The starting point regarding the different targets needs to be thoroughly analysed and documented at the local level, and targets should be conceived, debated and elaborated at the same level.


The responsible national competent authority or authorities should strive to ensure that those at the basin and sub-basin levels have the means to establish good dialogue based on the communication of data relevant to the targets, the key elements of the Protocol such as its legally binding components, the Guidelines, national legal requirements and organizational solutions that can contribute to the targets. Parties should secure sustained institutional support for the long term so that the local work can continue over the number of years deemed necessary to implement and monitor the Protocol.

Decisions relevant to the timing of and necessary funding for the targets should ultimately be made at the national level, taking account of the conclusions and commitment of the local State administrations and the long timescale needed to obtain visible results. Of particular relevance is the issue of cost. A cost-benefit analysis is necessary to ensure that the targets are proportionate to the needs, shared and supported by local stakeholders.

The Protocol aims at a profound change of mentality, i.e. a move away from the usual pollution treatment solutions towards more control and prevention. In a necessary dialogue outside politico-administrative boundaries, stakeholders have a key role to play in expressing the society’s expectations and in building consensus. Consumer associations and NGOs, the scientific community, the private sector and the general public can help provide facts and mobilize the necessary means and networks. The participation of these stakeholders to national or more local levels should be gradually adapted by the Parties to the stakeholders’ contribution to the Protocol targets, also taking account of the equilibrium between and necessary diversity of the different stakeholders.

On the basis of a river-basin analysis of the situation, Parties may decide on targets that can be organizational, with the related regulatory implications, or on practical targets such as the development of river basin management plans, the construction of wastewater treatment plants, monitoring networks, common standards (quantity quality) and the enhancement of network of laboratories.

61. It may not be necessary or possible at this stage to undertake comprehensive cost-benefit analysis for all the possible targets under discussion. However, some sort of assessment of benefits in combination with the costs may be of help in getting political and financial support for actions. The process could be supported by appropriate political and financial strategies, which could help:

(a) To assess total investment needs of target-setting;

(b) To identify investment needs for short- to medium-term targets;

(c) To identify policies and measures which are necessary to finance the achievement of the targets;

(d) To support claims of relevant ministries responsible for municipal services on the public budget;

(e) To prepare and make the case for external funding requests (e.g. to donors or to the Ad Hoc Project Facilitation Mechanism);


(f) To improve accountability;

(g) To improve monitoring.

62. Parties should collect information on possible funding instruments. Guidance on the implementation of macroeconomic analysis is available from a number of sources, including WHO, as far as water supply and sanitation and the reduction of water-related disease are concerned. However, the importance of microeconomics, i.e. the balance of benefits accrued at the individual level against expenses to be incurred at the individual level in the context of the individual economic situation, should also be recognized.

63. Parties shall encourage research related to development of cost-effective techniques for setting targets that ultimately will contribute towards the prevention, control and reduction of water-related disease and to the sustainable use of water resources.

64. In order to fulfil the commitments and maintain a stable work flow towards achieving targets, the final targets should be officially approved/endorsed by the Government.

Box 5. FEASIBLE: an example of decision support tool to support the preparation of environmental financing strategies for water, wastewater and municipal solid waste services

Financial issues such as the costs of achieving goals, how the costs can be minimized, and the challenge of matching the costs with available resources often constitute a serious obstacle for many countries. FEASIBLE is a software tool developed to support the preparation of environmental financing strategies for water, wastewater and municipal solid waste services. The FEASIBLE model is freeware and can be obtained through the webpages of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the Danish Ministry of Environment (DEPA), the Danish Environmental Protection Agency (DANCEE) and COWI3. FEASIBLE can be used to facilitate the iterative process of balancing the required finance with the available finance. It provides a systematic, consistent and quantitative framework for analysing the feasibility of financing environmental targets. Being a computerized model, FEASIBLE may be used to analyse “what if” a certain policy is changed and to document the financial impacts in a systematic and transparent manner.

The basic approach underlying the FEASIBLE method is: (a) to collect detailed technical data on existing infrastructure; (b) to select public policy targets in water supply; (c) to determine costs and timetables for achieving them; and (d) to compare the schedule and volume of expenditure needs with available sources of finance. This reveals any financial deficits likely to arise along the way. FEASIBLE can be used to develop various scenarios to determine how the gaps might be closed, such as identifying ways to help achieve the targets at lower cost or to mobilize additional finance, setting less ambitious targets, or rescheduling the programme. These results help policymakers understand where the main bottlenecks are as well as where, when and what additional policy interventions are needed to facilitate effective financing of infrastructure development programmes.

An important feature of FEASIBLE is the emphasis on realism and affordability. FEASIBLE

3 Consultancy within Engineering, Environmental Science and Economics.


can be used to assess the levels of finance (public, private, domestic, foreign) that might be available under different macroeconomic and fiscal conditions. This provides a check on what public budgets might realistically be expected to contribute. FEASIBLE is usually used to support a process of dialogue and consensus-building among stakeholders and to build bridges between policy development and implementation.

E. Broad consultation on the proposed targets, target dates and relevant programme of measures

65. In accordance with article 6, Parties shall make appropriate provisions for public participation within a transparent and fair framework and shall ensure that due account is taken of the outcome of such participation. The public participation will enhance the social acceptance of the targets, contribute to a relevant and realistic outcome of the target-setting process and ensure that there are partners, such as NGOs, for the implementation of the programme of measures.

66. To this end:

(a) The proposed targets, target dates and relevant programme of measures should be disseminated as much as possible to the broader public, relevant professional communities and other stakeholders;

(b) To allow an informed participation of the public and relevant stakeholders, necessary information should be made available. Thus, information about the ongoing process of target-setting could be published on the Internet and regularly updated;

(c) Consultation with the public should be organized to present and discuss the draft targets and programme of measures. This can include public hearings, online consultations, workshops, etc.;

(d) External actors and organizations can be used to spread information about the Protocol;

(e) If consultations take place at the local, provincial and national levels, they should be mutually reinforcing;

(f) The opinions of the public and stakeholders should not only be consulted, but also taken into account in the elaboration of the documents and further elaboration/revision of the targets and programme of measures;

(g) It is possible to create a permanent consultative council with various stakeholders involved.


Box 6. Involving the public in decision-making: examples from Ukraine

A number of examples of broad public consultations processes related to the decision-making process on environment, health and water issues at the national level in Ukraine can be mentioned.

1998-1999 – Broad public consultations to comment on the draft of the National Environmental and Health Action Plan (NEHAP) were organized in cooperation of National Coordinator with three environmental NGOs. After five regional seminars, more then 700 public comments were gathered. The leading experts prepared new drafts of the NEHAP chapters. The final official edition included a surprisingly large number of these comments.

2001 – Public consultations in nine regions and public hearings of the draft Law on Drinking Water and Drinking Water supply of Ukraine at the national level were initiated and organized by the NGO “MAMA-86”. As a result of these public consultations, 150 public amendments to the draft Law were gathered and delivered to the Law Drafting Group. The Group was led by the State Committee on Housing and Communal Services of Ukraine. Representatives of all responsible ministries and State departments as well as main stakeholders and experts, including NGOs were invited to participate in this work. In 2001, the first draft of the Law was presented to the Parliament of Ukraine. After the hearing on the draft Law in the Parliament, the Law was passed for final work. At this stage, NGOs, under the leadership of the NGO MAMA-86, initiated and organized the broad public consultations on the draft Law. The document was broadly disseminated to the public and stakeholders in nine regions of Ukraine. Over a two-month period, more then 155 comments were collected, which were discussed at the public hearings in October 2001 in Kyiv. During November–December 2001, all the comments and amendments reviewed by stakeholders, including the public, and presented and discussed at the meetings of editing group and finally at the meeting of the Parliament Committee responsible for the Law. As a result, one third of public amendments were taken into due account and incorporated into the Law, which was adopted by Parliament of Ukraine in January 2002.

2004 – Public consultations were initiated by MAMA-86 to discuss the draft of the State Programme on “Drinking water of Ukraine”. Twenty-sixth NGOs gathered 110 public comments, which were discussed at the public hearings. The results of the consultations were presented and discussed at the public hearings, and the outcomes of this public process were delivered to the State editing group.

The main public comments were on rural water supply and sanitation sector rehabilitation and development and on additional local water purification development to provide safe water for sensitive consumer groups, including children, hospitals, schools and dwellers of Chernobyl and environmental disaster areas.

A section on public information, education and the upgrading of skills of the water and sanitation personnel, the allocation of State budget for the program measures based on principle of local State budgets co-funding for water and sanitation action plans at the local level and others) was incorporated into the Programme. The State Programme was adopted in March 2005.

67. The public should be informed in due time about the opportunities, procedures and criteria for providing comments on draft documentation and targets. Such information should be provided through websites as well as, if feasible, directly to the public, professional communities and other stakeholders requesting notification or who had otherwise been identified as in need of direct communication.


68. To preserve the quality of the decision-making process, transparent and clearly stated mechanisms and procedures should be established regarding the submission of and response to comments and the public should be informed accordingly.

69. Among the member States of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), some have long and rich traditions of well-organized and institutionalized public participation. In these countries, a number of methods and techniques (e.g. panels, forums, workshops, pubic meetings and hearings, information markets) have been developed to enable this participation. In other countries involving the public in policy planning is still at an early stage and regarded is as something new, yet developing. The availability of resources – be they related to finances, time, capacity, social traditions, information and/or creativity – can be a limiting factor. However, limits to effective participation processes should not be an excuse for avoiding participation, but rather challenge to met in order to reach the goal of creating the best possible conditions for successful participation.

70. Public involvement brings productive, long-term, trustful relationships between citizens and decision makers. Some key factors for making the public involvement successful include:

(a) Clear communication about the purpose of the consultation and its relation to the overall target-setting process, and identifiable links between consultations and the final decisions;

(b) Information needs to be presented clearly and honestly;

(c) Enough time should be allowed for public and stakeholder scrutiny;

(d) Clear procedural rules are needed to promote power and information sharing among participants and decision makers;

(e) Processes that are viewed as legitimate by citizens and decision makers.

71. The following aspects have an important impact on the process of public consultations and their outcomes:

(a) Addressing stakeholders’ concerns about the adequacy and quality of information;

(b) Addressing decision makers’ concerns about sharing information and the constrains that apply to this process;

(c) Recognizing public participants’ experimental and often anecdotal knowledge as a valuable information source.


F. Final agreement on targets and their publication and communication to all stakeholders, including the public and consumers

72. On the basis of the outcome of the public consultation, the proposed/draft targets should be revised as needed and consolidated.

73. The final, agreed targets and target dates should be endorsed at the appropriate political level (e.g. council of ministers or Parliament, depending on the national situation).

74. The agreed targets, target dates and programme of work must be published and brought to the attention of all stakeholders, at the national, provincial and local levels, as well as to the population. For this purpose, the Internet, relevant newspapers or TV and other media should be used.

75. Relevant local and national organizations can also play an important role in disseminating and publicizing targets, target dates and monitoring programmes.

G. Implementation of the monitoring programme

76. Together with the targets set, a proposed monitoring programme to attain the targets in the agreed time frame should be defined and agreed upon. This programme should contain a clear time plan and political, administrative, behavioural and infrastructural indicators, based on the target set, a clear distribution of responsibilities and a financial strategy. Existing projects, strategies and other activities should be taken into account.

77. Implementation should start as soon as possible after the targets are agreed, and should be regularly evaluated. A programme committee can be established to this end which can meet once or twice a year to review the progress made and to adjust the monitoring programme if needed.

III. Review and assessment of progress and reporting

A. Collection of data, assessment of progress and revision of targets

78. According to article 7, paragraph 1, Parties shall collect and evaluate data on progress towards the achievement of individual targets set.

79. Parties shall design indicators that show how far progress towards the targets has contributed towards preventing, controlling or reducing water-related disease. This is likely to require some experience with the targets set and with the review and assessment of progress towards them.


80. Moreover, when collecting data, Parties shall consider that, in their summary reports to the Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol, they are also required to provide general information related to the quality of water supplied, the scale and incidents of water-related disease, access to water and sanitation and the effectiveness of the management and the protection and use of freshwater resources, using common indicators (see table 4).

81. It is recommended that the coordination mechanism responsible for target-setting be involved in the data collection, assessing and reporting under the Protocol. This will enable examination of the needs and possibilities to revise the targets according to recent knowledge and requirements.

82. When collecting data, Parties should consider the following:

(a) If possible or appropriate, joint data collection and data analysis withneighbouring countries are recommended;

(b) Linking data collection with EU reporting obligations is a feasiblepossibility;

(c) Responsible and coordinating bodies should be defined for the collection of data and for preparing the summary report (e.g. the Ministry of Health or Environment or other agencies and departments).

83. Every three years, on the basis of the data collection and evaluation, Parties shall review progress towards the targets and review their targets, with a view to improving them in the light of scientific and technical progress. Such review can also occur more frequently (e.g. every year).

84. Such review shall include a review of the targets set, with a view to improving them in light of scientific and technical knowledge. It is therefore necessary to establish feedback mechanisms linked to the evaluation of progress, involving reporting and follow-up procedures, and including informal mechanisms such as networking, which allows for the dissemination of ideas and information.

85. Ultimately, Parties should strive to present information on environment, water and health in a holistic and integrated manner rather than as a collection of single parameter indicators. Parties are therefore encouraged to establish integrative numeric indicators or to consider the use of systems that allow for the integrated compilation, storage and analysis of individual data sets (e.g. through use of geographic information systems (GIS)). Parties should also encourage the development of integrated information systems to handle information about long-term trends, current concerns and past problems and successful solutions to them in the field of water and health, and should provide such information to the competent authorities.


B. Publication of the data collected and of the evaluation

86. Every three years, Parties shall publish the results of the collection and evaluation of data (art. 7, para. 2) on their progress towards the achievement of targets. Moreover, article 7, paragraph 3, requires Parties to make available to the general public the results of water and effluent sampling carried out for this purpose.

87. Parties should ensure that data will not only be commonly available but also presented in readable, user-friendly and easily transferable formats. Practical arrangements for making the information accessible should be made. These can include:

(a) Publicly accessible websites;

(b) Publicly accessible lists, registers or files available at no charge;

(c) Active information and support to the public in seeking information (e.g. newspapers, radio);

(d) Provision of points of contact (e.g. newspapers, radio);

(e) Creation of clearinghouse on the Protocol.

Box 7. Effectively accessible information

There is a world of difference between making information available to the public in a minimalist sense that it is not secret, and actually making it actively accessible in a user-friendly format that reflects the needs and concerns of the public. The difference is well-illustrated by the website set up by the NGO, Friends of the Earth in the United Kingdom. This project took publicly available information from the United Kingdom Environment Agency’s Chemical Release Inventory and entered it into a GIS-type database. The new website attracted massive public interest to data that had already been in the public domain but had received little attention because it was unwieldy and difficult to sort through.

C. Preparation and submission of national summary reports to the Meeting of the Parties

88. According to the article 7, paragraph 5, each Party shall provide to the Secretariat, for circulation to the other Parties, a summary report4 on the data collected, evaluated and assessment of the progress achieved. This summary report shall be prepared in accordance with agreed guidelines and template by the Meeting of the Parties.

89. The following aspects should be taken into account in the process of preparation of the national reports:

4 The Guidelines for summary reports in accordance with article 7 of the Protocol on Water and Health contain further information.


(a) While relevant ministries are usually responsible for the preparation of the national implementation reports, these reports are submitted to the Meeting of the Parties in the name of the Government of a particular Party;

(b) Taking into account the wide spectrum of issues to be covered in the report and various respective responsibilities, it seems advisable that a national inter-ministerial consultation process on the report should take place at various stages of the preparatory process;

(c) The inter-ministerial consultations provide an opportunity for environment and health ministries to engage other relevant ministries (e.g. the Ministry of Finance, Development or Natural Resources.), agencies and authorities at various levels of government in a discussion on the implementation of the Protocol. It can therefore be useful to identify, in advance of the consultation phase, a list of various agencies and authorities that can contribute to the preparation process;

(d) Parties are also encouraged to consider the participation of all relevant stakeholders in the preparation and use of summary report, including NGOs, civil society, local communities, business and the media, and therefore organize a broader consultation on the draft report;

(e) Reports should be submitted to the joint secretariat so as to arrive no later than 180 days before the meeting of the Parties for which they are submitted;

(f) If the Parties wish to ensure a meaningful consultation process and the timely submission of reports, they may wish to consider using the following timeline for the national report preparation process, keeping in mind that the reports should be submitted to the secretariat 180 days in advance of the meeting of the Parties:

Table 3. Possible timeline for preparation of national summary reports

Process Time required Preparation in the draft summary report through inter-ministerial consultations

3 months

Consultation on the draft summary report with the broader community

30–60 days

Final report preparation (including translation, where necessary)

30 days

Submission deadline 180 days in advance of the meeting of the Parties

PART TWO:


OPTIONS FOR SETTING TARGETS AND INDICATORS UNDER ARTICLE 6, PARAGRAPH 2 (A) TO (N)

INTRODUCTION

90. Part two of the Guidelines aims at providing more detailed guidance on how to decide upon specific targets in the different areas of article 6 paragraphs 2 (a) to (n) and how to chose relevant, target specific indicators to measure progress towards such targets.

91. In accordance with the framework in part one, this part will thus provide indications on issues related to the baseline analysis, the identification of problems and the prioritization on the basis of which targets and target dates are set in the different areas.


Review and assessment of progress and reporting

Stakeholder involvement

Revision of targets

Identification of key stakeholdersSetting up a coordination mechanism

Baseline analysisEnvironmental and health

situation (water quantity/quality, diseases etc.)

Existing legal framework (national and international)

Identification and prioritization of problems

Final agreement on targets and their publication and communication to all stakeholders

Implementation of the programme of measures

Agreement on draft targets, programme of measures and indicators

Broad consultation on proposed targets and relevant programme of measures


92. For each of the different thematic areas according to paragraph 2 (a) to (n) of article 6, the Guidelines cover the following aspects:

(a) Background rationale;

(b) List of issues to be considered for the process of target-setting;

(c) Where applicable, the common indicators related to the target area to be reported by all Parties when reporting;

(d) Relevant global and regional obligations and recommendations.

A. Target areas and target related indicators: issues to be considered

93. Each thematic area is provided with a list of issues to be considered for the process of target-setting, which should serve as a starting point for a self-assessment.

94. By considering the issues in the list, a Party should be able to identify problems and to get an initial indication on the “nature” – and consequently the level of ambition of targets – which might be established under each given thematic area to address these problems (see table 2).

95. It should be understood that none of the lists aims to be exhaustive. Thus, Parties will need to look at the proposed lists from their specific perspectives and may need to address additional issues depending on their own needs and situations. The lists are therefore a “point of entry” to guide the process of target-setting, and they are neither complete nor do they provide any form of decision tree.

96. The process of target-setting shall be accompanied by the identification of suitable target related indicators to measure progress. Indicators might be of quantitative or qualitative nature.

B. Common indicators

97. For the sake of harmonization of progress in the UNECE/WHO-Europe region, Parties have also agreed to include in their summary reports to the Meeting of the Parties information of the quality of the drinking water supplied, on the scale of outbreaks and incidents of water-related disease, on access to drinking water and sanitation and on the effectiveness of the management, use and protection of freshwater resources, by using common indicators. Table 4 below presents the areas and common indicators to be used when reporting on them.


Table 4. Common indicators

Focus area Common indicators

Quality of the drinking water supplied

WatSan_S2. Percentage of samples that fail to meet the standard for E. coli and percentage of samples that fail to meet the standard for Enterococci.

WatSan_S3. Percentage of samples that fail to meet the standard for chemical water quality. All countries should monitor and report on fluoride, nitrate and nitrite, arsenic, lead and iron. In addition, each Party should identify five additional those health-relevant chemical parameters of special concern in their national or local situation, and report on them.

Reduction of the scale of outbreaks and incidents of water-related disease

Real-time data on incidence, and outbreaks of:(a) Cholera; (b) Bacillary dysentery (shigellosis); (c) EHEC; (d) Viral hepatitis A;(e) Typhoid fever.

Access to drinking water Percentage of the population with access to improved drinking water. The WHO-United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Joint Monitoring Programme defines access to water supply in terms of the types of technology and levels of service afforded. Access to water-supply services is defined as the availability of at least 20 litres per person per day from an “improved” source within 1 kilometre of the user's dwelling. An “improved” source is one that is likely to provide “safe” water, such as a household connection, a borehole, a public standpipe or a protected dug well.

Access to sanitation Percentage of the population with access to improved sanitation, including small decentralized sewerage systems, and also septic and safe excreta disposal.


Focus area Common indicators

Effectiveness of systems for the management, protection and use of freshwater resources

Water quality – on the basis of national systems of water classifications, percentage of water falling into each defined class (e.g. in classes I, II, III, etc. for non-EU countries; for EU countries, percentage of surface waters with high, good, moderate, poor and bad ecological status; percentage of water with good or poor chemical status; and percentage of ground waters of good or poor status).

Water quantity – water exploitation index at the national and river-basin levels for each sector (agriculture, industry, domestic): mean annual abstraction of freshwater by sector divided by the mean annual total renewable freshwater resource at the country level, expressed in percentage terms.

98. If Parties cannot report on such common indicators, they should consider setting targets that will eventually enable them to do so

99. As these common indicators are closely related to target areas under article 6, paragraphs 2 (a), (b), (c) (d) and (m), Parties can consider setting targets by which progress can be measured through such common indicators. However, when the targets set are not related to such common indicators, other target-related indicators will need to be used.

100. In any case, these common indicators may be a way of demonstrating the overall impact of measures adopted to achieve the targets that have been set.

C. Relevant regional or global obligations and recommendation on reporting

101. The proposed approach to setting targets and the suggested target-related indicators are mostly based on indicators used or suggested for various reports to international organizations, in particular in the United Nations system.

102. The reporting obligations resulting from the acquis communautaire – which the 27 EU Member States are faced with – as well as other subregional reporting mechanisms (e.g. the European Environment Agency and Eurostat) have likewise been taken into account.

103. While EU legislation is directly relevant to only a portion of the UNECE-WHO Europe region, it is referred to at times for two reasons. First, it informed the negotiations and implementation of the Protocol for a large number of countries that are either member States of the EU or countries that have accession agreements and intend to join. Secondly, EU standardization has resulted in a developed regional, if not international, practice in many of the subject areas of the Protocol. Any references made to EU legislation and practices in the text are meant to convey practical information and not to indicate any particular status of EC law with respect to the UNECE region.


I. QUALITY OF THE DRINKING WATER SUPPLIED(ART. 6, PARA. 2 (a))

A. Background rationale

104. Article 6, paragraph 2 (a), of the Protocol requires the setting of targets and target dates regarding the quality of the drinking water supplied, taking into account the WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality5.

B. List of issues to be considered for the process of target-setting

105. In the target-setting process, the following aspects may be considered:

(a) The legal, institutional and administrative set-up:

(i)Legal provisions;

(ii)Enforcement (e.g. ability of a competent authority to oversee and control communal water supply);

(iii)Intervention capacity (mechanisms available for the society/State to take measures for remediation).

(b) Availability and reliability of information on the water quality situation in collective water supplies:

(i) Monitoring of suppliers:

a. Laboratory capacity (e.g. resources and personnel);b. Laboratory quality systems.

(ii) Surveillance (e.g. ability of a competent authority to form clear view of CDWS):

a. Data availability;b. Data treatment (computational capacity); c. Data transfer between the local and national levels;d. Data analysis at the national level.

(c) Issues of quality of water supplied:

(i) Microbiological quality:

5 Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality (Third edition), Volume 1: Recommendations. (Geneva: WHO, 2004). Available at: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/gdwq3/en/index.html

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/gdwq3/en/index.html


a. Problems to be settled at the source of the water (e.g. resource protection, wellhead protection);b. Problems to be settled at the water treatment level (e.g. treatment ability, disinfection capacity);c. Problems to be settled at the distribution level (e.g. pipework continuance and maintenance).

(ii) Chemical quality:

a. Issues related to the natural (geological) contamination of drinking water to be settled by treatment/…;b. Issues related to anthropogenic pollution of the water sources;c. Issues related to treatment for removal of pollutants;d. Issues emerging on the level of the distribution system;e. Issues emerging in domestic installations.

(d) Economic capacity:

(i) Financial capacity of intervention;

(e) Awareness-raising, education and training:

(i) Public campaigns to raise awareness on drinking water quality;

(ii) Actions to increase capacity of stakeholders (e.g. operators).

Box 8. Possible target: developing water safety plans for small-scale water supply systems

For several years, Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF), in cooperation with local partners, has been observing and monitoring water pollution of small-scale water supply systems in rural areas of the Caucasus, Eastern Europe and South-Eastern Europe. Besides bacteria, WECF has identified nitrate pollution as often polluting drinking (ground) water. Nitrate concentration in drinking water is easily to measure by quick tests, far more easily then bacteria, and therefore nitrates can serve as an indicator of anthropogenic water pollution. In the experience of WECF, proving through water tests that there is severe anthropogenic pollution of drinking water often does not trigger any action by local or regional authorities, who lack the knowledge and means to restore water quality.

Water safety plans involving schools

To address the above-mentioned problems, WECF has created an educational package for schools to develop water safety plan (WSPs) – in cooperation with other stakeholders – for their local small-scale water supply system. The educational package provides background information about the aims of the WSP, the properties of drinking water and sources of pollution, and related health risks. Teachers and local NGOs are trained in how to develop a WSP for their local community and about possible activities with the pupils. To raise awareness about existing drinking water pollution by synthetic fertilizers, animal and human waste, school staff are provided with information about carrying out organoleptic observations and nitrate quick tests. All possible contamination points and


potentially contaminating activities in water supply and sanitation should be identified and addressed using a questionnaire, checklists and field visits. Information and examples on how to report the results are available. The final products – maps, reports, posters, a safe water strategy – give the local community information on how to avoid risks of water pollution and a tool for lobbying for local, regional and national action to assure their right to access to safe water.

In autumn 2008, staff of several Romanian schools developed a programme for 800 pupils related to WECF-WSP activities over several months. Depending on the level, background and skills of the teachers, the content of the programme varies from school to school. However, monitoring and mapping of the nitrate pollution and the sources of pollution, as well as publishing the results, were made obligatory for all the participating schools. The Romanian schools and NGOs are motivated to cooperate with the responsible authorities to share information about the water supply and related diseases, and have asked for more detailed water analyses on e.g. bacteria. So far, the nitrate tests of the tested drinking waters in the eight participating villages showed nitrate levels far over the limit of 50 mg/l. The first results of the WSP developed by schools will be published and presented during the Danube Days 2009 in Romania.

Outlook

The approach to develop WSPs involving schools promises to be a good tool for community mobilization, for raising awareness on the need and obligation of water protection strategies, and for taking action at the local and national levels. For scaling up this WSP programme and for bringing the local findings and experiences up to national level, the issue should become obligatory in the curriculum of the schools. For many countries the WSP programme could appear the bridge between setting targets under the Protocol on national and local levels.6

C. Related common indicators

106. Parties agreed to include in their summary reports information related to the following indicators based on the Environment and Health Information System (EHIS) developed by WHO in cooperation with the European Commission (full background information, including methodological development, is available at: www.enhis.org):

(a) WatSan_S2.Percentage of samples that fail to meet the standard for E. coli and percentage of samples that fail to meet the standard for Enterococci;

(b) WatSan_S3.Percentage of samples that fail to meet the standard for chemical water quality, with individual Parties to identify those health-relevant chemical parameters that are of special concern in their national or local situation. All countries shall monitor and report on fluoride, nitrate and nitrite, arsenic, lead7and iron.

107. Moreover, each Party shall report on five additional priority substances of their choice, the most problematic from a national/local point of view.

6 For more information, see [email protected]; www.wecf.eu.7 After the decision taken on this item at the Task Force meeting, Hungary submitted a request to delete lead, as it is not a problem for many Parties and is difficult to monitor; also, data are not comparable due to very different sampling methods used.

http://www.enhis.org/

http://www.wecf.eu/

mailto:[email protected]


Box 9. Examples of targets and indicators set under article 6 (a) by the Czech Republic

Target Deadline Indicator

Reduction of cases of violence of drinking water limits.

31/12/2012 Percentage of quality limits violence

Publication of updated booklet on wells. 31/12/2010 Booklet issued (yes–no)

Continuation of implementation of the Programme supporting exchange of lead pipelines in living houses.

31/12/2013 Supporting programme announced every year

D. Relevant global and regional obligations and reporting systems

108. EU Member States are obliged under article 13 (2) of the EU Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC to publish a report every three years on the quality of water intended for human consumption with the objective of informing the public. Each report shall include, as a minimum, all individual supplies of water exceeding 1,000 m3 a day as an average or serving more than 5,000 persons, and shall cover three calendar years and be published within one calendar year of the end of the reporting period. The Directive specifies specific parameters through article 5 (2) and (3) and monitoring programmes through article 7 (2).

109. In developing a national or local assessment, Parties may wish to take into consideration recent guidance material developed by WHO.8

II. REDUCTION OF THE SCALE OF OUTBREAKS AND INCIDENTS OF WATER-RELATED DISEASE9 (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (b))


110. Article 6, paragraph 2 (b), of the Protocol requires the setting of targets and target dates related to the reduction of the scale of outbreaks and incidents of water-related disease. Article 8 specifies the national and local actions to be taken to develop surveillance and response systems. Safe drinking and bathing water is vital for the health of the population, particularly children. The number of outbreaks of water-related disease provides an indication of the quality of the drinking or bathing water and is linked to the performance of the water supply and the upstream sanitation systems.

8 Thompson, T. et al., Chemical safety of drinking water: Assessing priorities for risk management (Geneva: WHO, 2007). Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241546768_eng.pdf.9 An outbreak of waterborne disease is generally defined as a situation in which at least two people experience a similar illness after exposure to water and the evidence suggests a probable water source. According to article 2 of the Protocol, “water-related disease” means any significant adverse effects on human health, such as death, disability, illness or disorders caused directly or indirectly by the condition or changes in the quantity or quality of any waters.

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241546768_eng.pdf



111. According to specific local and national situation, Parties might wish to set targets related to diseases caused by water contamination, but also by lack of water. Parties might also wish to set targets related to diseases caused not only by microbiological contamination, but also by the chemical quality of water, such as blue bay syndrome linked to nitrate exposure, fluorosis linked to fluoride exposure, and various arsenic-related toxic effects linked to arsenic exposure.

112. In the target-setting process, the following aspects may be considered.


(i) A legally based surveillance system for detection, investigation and reporting of infectious diseases working on sustainable basis;

(ii) The effectiveness of surveillance system.

(b) Availability and reliability of information on water quality situation in collective water supplies:

(i) The system of data flow and its sharing among all stakeholders;

(ii) The completeness of national database (gathering all local data into central database);

(iii) A quality assurance system for laboratories.

(c) Issues of water-related disease surveillance:

(i) The system working within proper institutional framework, including the national health system (e.g. general practitioners);

(ii) The system enabling identification of water as an exposure route;

(iii) The possibility for authorities involved in outbreak investigation to order disclosure of information or take additional actions by the water utilities;

(iv) Clear definition of outbreak used in national surveillance system;

(v) The system enabling identification of specific pathogen(s) causing the outbreaks (proper laboratory skills and capacities).

(d) Economic capacity:

(i) The surveillance system is working on sustainable basis.



113. Parties agreed to include in their summary reports information related to real-time data on incidence (number of cases per the year reported from all exposure routes) and on the number of outbreaks per year (potentially related to water) of:

(a) Cholera;

(b) Bacillary dysentery (shigellosis);

(c) EHEC (Enterohaemorrhagic E. coli 0157:H7);

(d) Viral hepatitis A;

(e) Typhoid fever.

D. Relevant regional or global obligations and recommendation on reporting

114. It is recommended that Parties collect the following information:

(a) Systematic gathering of information on suspected outbreaks from a wide range of formal and informal sources;

(b) Real-time data on the outbreak (e.g. total number of outbreaks, affected persons) of the primary diseases recognized under the Protocol (cholera, bacillary dysentery, EHEC, viral hepatitis A and typhoid fever).

115. If possible, information should also be included on emerging diseases which are of relevance for the Party in question (e.g. campylobacteriosis, cryptosporidiosis, giardiasis and legionellosis, acute gastroenteritis of unknown but supposed infectious origin (diagnosis A09 according to ICD-10), amaebia). A possible indicator is the real-time data on incidence (e.g. the number of cases per the year reported, or from all exposure routes).

116. Possible data providers include:

(a) The Centralized Information System for Infectious Diseases (CISID,http://data.euro.who.int/cisid/) uses advanced technology to collect, analyse and present data in the WHO-Europe region. CISID covers all diseases recognized to be of importance to Parties: cholera, EHEC, viral hepatitis A, typhoid fever and bacillary dysentery/shigellosis. It also covers emerging diseases recognized to be of importance for the Protocol, including campylobacteriosis, cryptosporidiosis, giardiasis and legionellosis. Information gathering under CISID is structured as annual invitations to report, sent out by the WHO Regional Office for Europe;

http://data.euro.who.int/cisid/


(b) The Health for All database collects, analyses and presents data on mortality, including mortality from diarrhoeal diseases in the below 5 age group;

(c) Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response (EPR) (http://www.who.int/csr/en/), a programme of WHO, is an integrated alert and response system for epidemics and other public health emergencies based on strong national public health systems, and is part of an effective international system for coordinated response. At present, EPR covers acute diarrhoeal syndrome and acute watery diarrhoeal syndrome, acute haemorrhagic fever syndrome, cholera, EHEC infection, hepatitis, shigellosis and typhoid fever. It also covers two diseases which were not yet recognized as being of prime importance by the experts from Parties: legionellosis and malaria.

III. ACCESS TO DRINKING WATER (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (c))


117. Access to drinking water for everyone is among the most important objectives of the Protocol (art. 6, para. 1) and is fully in line with the recognition of water as basic human right by the United Nations. This includes the setting of targets and target dates as to the area of territory, or the population sizes or proportions, which should be served by collective systems for the supply of drinking water or where the supply of drinking water by other means should be improved.

118. The issue of access is not only linked to physical accessibility, but also to economic accessibility (affordability) on the macro and micro levels and to non-discrimination (art. 5, para. l).




(i) Legal provisions relating to the drinking water supply of the population;

(ii) Provisions related to the water supply for population not covered by community supplies;

(iii) Provisions relating to small and individual drinking water supplies;

(iv) Provisions for available financial instruments to assist communities in establishing safe drinking water supply;

(v) Provisions for emergency situations.

http://www.who.int/csr/en/


(b) Issues of reliable information:

(i) Availability of information on population coverage (number of population with/without access to community supply;

(ii) Availability of information on the quality and quantity of water consumed by the population without access to community supply;

(iii) Special education/awareness programmes, especially in the rural areas at the village level;

(iv) Trainings on public health for operators of small water supplies systems.

(c) Issues of quality:

(i) Assessment of prevalent quality problems of small/individual water supplies;

(ii) Assessment of risks pertaining to water quantity and quality problems of individual water supplies;

(iii) Assessment of adequate resource protection (zoning and enforcement).

(d) Issues of economical capacity:

(i) Capacity of reliable metering of water supplied and consumed;

(ii) System of State subsidies for disadvantaged groups and its sustainability;

(iii)Sustainable water pricing in community systems;

(iv) Supply systems economical sustainability;

(v) Affordability of access to community systems;

(vi) Affordability of access to good quality drinking water in small/individual supplies.

(e) Awareness-raising, education, training:

(i) Provisions for upgrading the understanding and skills of individual water providers;

(ii) Provisions for awareness, training and education of users of community and non-community supplies.



120. Parties agreed to include in their summary reports information related to access to improved drinking water. The WHO-UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) defines access to water supply in terms of the types of technology and levels of service afforded. Access to water-supply services is defined as the availability of at least 20 litres per person per day from an “improved" source within 1 kilometre of the user's dwelling. An “improved” source is one that is likely to provide "safe" water, such as a household connection, a borehole, a public standpipe, a protected dug well. If a Party defines access in a different way, it can report according to its definition and make explicit the definition it uses to calculate access.

Box 10. Examples of targets and indicators on access to drinking water

Hungary has chosen the following approach/targets: (a) a nationwide survey on the population without access, and exploration of the feasible solutions; and (b) the development of a system of social subsidies to implement the human right to water.

Portugal uses as an indicator for affordability the percentage of the water bill cost compared to the family income. This ratio should not be above 2 per cent.

Czech Republic has set the following targets: (a) elaboration of a development plan on water supply and sanitation systems in for the whole territory of the country; and (b) facilitation of connection of residents in suburbs and in small villages to the public water supply.

D. Relevant global and regional obligations and recommendations for reporting

121. JMP10 monitors the proportion of the population with access to safe drinking water expressed as the percentage of people using improved drinking water sources or delivery points. JMP is the officially designated monitoring programme by which progress to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is being assessed. However, JMP neither includes the daily availability of water at home nor the quality of the delivered water.

122. Additional information is also available from other sources, e.g. Eurostat and the OECD.

123. When setting targets and reporting, Parties can decide to differentiate between access to “non-improved” supply (to allow the differentiation between lack of water and having water for hygiene but not for drinking purposes), access to improved11 water supply and access to safe

10 Information on JMP is available at: http://www.wssinfo.org/en/welcome.html. 11 Improved drinking water sources include according to the definition of the JMP: (a) piped water into dwelling; (b) plot or yard; (c) public tap/standpipe; (d) tubewell/borehole; (e) protected dug well; (f) protected spring; and (g) rainwater collection. Unimproved drinking water sources include: (a) unprotected dug well; (b) unprotected spring; (c) cart with small tank/drum; (d) bottled water (only when the household uses water from an improved source for cooking and personal hygiene); (e) tanker truck; and (f) surface water.

http://www.wssinfo.org/en/welcome.html


water supply in accordance with the WHO Guidelines on Drinking-water Quality or a similar national legal framework

IV. ACCESS TO SANITATION12 (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (d))


124. Provision of sanitation to everyone is among the most important objectives of the Protocol (art. 6, para. 1). Article 6, paragraph 2 (d), requires the setting of targets and target dates related to the area of territory, or the population sizes or proportions, which should be served by collective systems of sanitation or where sanitation by other means should be improved.




(i) Legal provisions relating to the access to sanitation (sewerage systems) by the population;

(ii) Provisions/rules relating to the individual sanitation systems;

(iii) Provisions for available financial instruments to assist communities in accessing sanitation systems;

(iv) Provisions for emergency situations;

(v) Supervision (ability of a competent authority to control access and access conditions);

(vi) Data availability.


(i) Availability of information on population coverage (number of population with/without access to sewerage systems;

(ii) Availability of information on the quality and quantity of sewage drained and treated.

(c) Issues of infrastructure:

12 According to the Protocol, article 2 (“Sanitation”) means the collection, transport, treatment and disposal or reuse of human excreta or domestic wastewater, whether through collective systems or by installations serving a single household or undertaking.


(i) The percentage of the population served by sewerage connections and wastewater treatment plants, making a possible distinction between primary, secondary and tertiary wastewater treatment plants;

(ii) Existence of primary, secondary and tertiary wastewater treatment plants;

(iii) Existence of decentralized systems for small settlements and on-site sanitation;


(i) Sustainable pricing of sewerage;

(ii) Sewerage systems economical sustainability;

(iii) Affordability of access to community systems;


(i) Provisions for upgrading the understanding and skills of local governments and community supply providers;

(ii) Provisions for upgrading the understanding and skills of individual system operators.


126. Parties agreed to include in their summary reports information related to access to the percentage of the population with access to improved sanitation. According to JPM, an improved sanitation facility is a facility that hygienically separates human waste from human contact. If a Party defines access in a different way, it can report according to its definition and make explicit the definition it uses to calculate access.

Box 11. Examples of targets related to access to sanitation


Finland Centralized sewerage and wastewater treatment is the goal wherever technically and economically feasible in terms of water services and environmental protection. Areas meeting these conditions are determined so that centralized sewerage and wastewater treatment can be implemented before expiry of the deadline imposed in Government Decree on property-specific wastewater treatment requirements (542/2003). Property owners shall render property-specific sanitation systems compliant with requirements in those cases where connecting the property to the collective system of sanitation is not a viable option due to the location of the property.

Czech Republic Finalization of construction of missing sanitation (wastewater treatment plants and sewerage) and improvement of wastewater treatment technology to comply the requirements of the 91/271/EEC Directive. Construction of wastewater treatment facilities in small settlements with less than 2,000inhabitants, where the sewerage system exists.

D. Relevant global and regional obligations and recommendations on reporting

127. JMP collects data on access to improved sanitation facilities defined as connections to a public sewer, connection to a septic tank, flush or pour-flush to piped sewer system, septic tank, or pit latrine, ventilated improved pit latrine, pit latrine with slab, or composting toilet. Unimproved sanitation includes flush or pour-flush to elsewhere (street, yard or plot, open sewer, ditch, drainage way or other location); pit latrine without slab or open pit; bucket; hanging toilet or hanging latrine; and no facilities or bush or field.

128. According to the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive 91/271/EC, all settlements with over 2,000 inhabitants need to have a proper collection and treatment system. The Urban Wastewater Directive also requires EU Member States to ensure that every two years the relevant authorities publish situation reports on the disposal of urban wastewater and sludge in their areas.

129. Additional database and reporting systems on access to sanitation include the European Environment and Health Information System (ENHIS)13 Joint Eurostat/OECD questionnaire, the Health for All Database and EIONET (EEA WATERBASE).

V. LEVELS OF PERFORMANCE OF COLLECTIVE SYSTEMS AND OTHER SYSTEMS FOR WATER SUPPLY (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (e))


130. Article 6, paragraph 2 (e), of the Protocol requires the setting of targets and target dates related to the levels of performance to be achieved by collective systems and by other means of water supply and sanitation.

13 See http://www.enhis.org/.





(i) Legal or regulatory obligations in relation to levels of performance;

(b) Issues of management:

(i) Existing benchmarking requirements;

(ii) Average continuity of drinking water supply;

(iii) Failure rates to comply with legally required residual chlorine at point of consumption (in countries with mandatory chlorination only);

(iv) Main failures (including failures of valves and fittings);

(v) Water loss;

(vi) Produced by certified (e.g. International Organization for Standardization (ISO)) suppliers, or other quality assurance systems;

(vii) Complaints received by authorities and/or service providers in relation to the performance of services;

(viii) Capacity to cope with extreme weather events and to implement the guidelines of the Task Force on Extreme Weather Events;

(c) Economic capacity:

(i) Efficiency, sustainability and affordability criteria of the water utility;

(ii) Water price and social accessibility (e.g. comparing the cost for water with the income of the family).

C. Relevant global and regional obligations and reporting systems

132. Not applicable.


VI. LEVELS OF PERFORMANCE OF COLLECTIVE SYSTEMS AND OTHER SYSTEMS FOR SANITATION (ART. 6, PARA. 2) (e) (continued)


133. Article 6, paragraph 2 (e), of the Protocol requires the setting of targets and target dates related to the levels of performance to be achieved by collective systems and by other means of water supply and sanitation.

134. Targets and indicators for the level of performance of collective systems for “sanitation” need to include issues in relation to the collection, transport, treatment and disposal or reuse of human excreta or domestic wastewater, whether through collective systems or by installations serving a single household or undertaking (see article 2, paragraph 9).



(a) Legal or regulatory obligations in relation to levels of performance;

(b) Existing benchmarking requirements;

(c) Pump failures;

(d) Blocking of sewers;

(e) Treatment efficiency for the removal of organics and nutrients;

(f) Price of the wastewater services;

(g) Sustainability of the operator under given economic, environmental, technical, financial, operational and human resources conditions;

(h) Complaints received by authorities and/or service providers in relation to the performance of services;

(i)Capacity to cope with extreme weather events and to implement the guidelines of the Task Force on Extreme Weather Events.

C. Relevant global and regional obligations and reporting systems

136. The Programme for the Assessment and Control of Marine Pollution in the Mediterranean Region (MED POL), the scientific and technical component of Mediterranean Action Plan established under the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean (Barcelona Convention), is responsible for the


implementation of the Land-Based Sources, Dumping and Hazardous Wastes Protocols.14 It publishes guidelines on sewage treatment and disposal and monitors the application of these guidelines throughout the Mediterranean region.15 At present, MED POL assesses sewerage and performance of sewage systems in all Mediterranean cities with populations of more than 2,000 inhabitants.

VII. APPLICATION OF RECOGNIZED GOOD PRACTICES TO THE MANAGEMENT OF WATER SUPPLY

(ART. 6, PARA. 2 (f))


137. Article 6, paragraph 2 (f), of the Protocol requires the setting of targets and target dates related to the application of recognized good practices in the management of water supply and sanitation. Thus, emphasis is put on good but not necessarily the best practices, which have to be adapted to the local circumstances (not necessarily internationally recognized) and to implementation.

B. List of issues to be considered in the process of target-setting

138. The WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality recognize that the most effective means of consistently ensuring the safety of a drinking water supply is through the use of an approach incorporating comprehensive risk assessment and risk management. Such an approach is termed a WSP. The WSP approach complements the compliance-based approach and may reduce both the workload and financial expenses related to verification monitoring.

139. WSPs are seen as a viable approach to safe drinking water through small scale water supplies, including private wells, provided that an enabling environment is created that supports WSP implementation in small supplies by providing external expertise, the establishment of partnerships amongst suppliers, the preparation and distribution of easy to understand guidance documents, and training and education.

140. A survey undertaken by the WHO Regional Office for Europe in cooperation with the European Commission demonstrated that in many countries WSPs or elements thereof are already being applied. A possible approach could therefore be to select targets and indicators which would highlight the move towards full water safety plans throughout the water utility.

14 The Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from Land-Based Sources and Activities, the Protocol for the Prevention and Elimination of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft or Incineration at Sea, and the Protocol on the Prevention of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal.15 See, for example, United Nations Environment Programme, Guidelines on Sewage Treatment and Disposal for the Mediterranean Region (2004).



(a) Legal and/or regulatory obligations to apply recognized good practices;

(b) Certification schemes in relation to universally accepted standards which are independently verified, such as the ISO 9000 or ISO 14000;

(c) Implementation of an independently verified water safety plan or ISO 22000 certification;

(d) Certification of components to universal standards, for example laboratory accreditation by national accreditation bodies;

(e) Systems for the establishment of approved protection zones;

(f) Type of treatment technologies employed for different raw/source water qualities (e.g. in cases where it is not possible to protect water sources properly, do you have systems for compensating for this with advanced water treatment plants?);

(g) Availability and accessibility of acknowledged codes of good practice or international standards in relation to construction, maintenance and operation of technical infrastructures, such as abstraction, treatment, storage and distribution;

(h) Integrated water resource management plans.

C. Relevant global and regional obligations and recommendations for reporting

142. Not applicable.

Box 12. Examples of targets in relation to good practices to the management of water supply

Finland The major targets with respect of drinking water quality involve reducing nutrient inputs causing eutrophication, reducing the risks arising from harmful substances, and protecting groundwater.

Czech Republic

Elimination or reduction of priority and priority hazardous substances in water, i.e. compliance with requirements of the EU Directives on priority and priority hazardous substances discharge to water.

Compliance with requirements of EU Directives on quality of bathing water and of surface water intended for abstraction of drinking water in Member States and their emission standards. Fulfilment of requirements of the Directive 2000/60/EC, establishing a framework for Community action in field of water policy concerning achievement of good water status.


VIII. APPLICATION OF RECOGNIZED GOOD PRACTICE TO THE MANAGEMENT OF SANITATION (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (f) (continued))

A. List of issues to be considered in the process of target-setting (to be developed)

143. Although the situation with sanitation utilities is somewhat different from the situation with water utilities, common practice between different operators does allow the formulation of a number of suggestions at the level of the individual utility, as well as on a local or national basis.

B. Relevant global and regional obligations and recommendations for reporting

144. Possible indicators at the level of the individual utility include:

(a) The annual mean removal percentages of indicative parameters (e.g. biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), suspended solids, total nitrogen and total phosphorous);

(b) The daily quality standard for the effluent of the wastewater treatment plant and the number of non-compliance cases of such parameter per year.

145. This approach would allow countries to report that in the year XXXX, AAA wastewater treatment plants met all emission standards, while BBB treatment plants failed to meet the standard for ZZZ (e.g. nitrogen) in YYY per cent of cases.

146. In addition, sludge production and sludge treatment (drying beds, mechanical dewatering and incineration in tons per year per treatment method) could be considered.

147. Possible indicators at the level of the river basin or country include:

(a) The number of wastewater treatment plants existing and planned load (population equivalent/year);

(b) The number of wastewater treatment plants operational and planned load (population equivalent/year);

(c) The number of wastewater treatment plants operational and slated for performance upgrade;

(d) The number of wastewater treatment plants existing, but not functioning (population equivalent/year);


(e) The number of planned wastewater treatment plants, planned load, and planned year of start-up.

IX. OCCURRENCE OF DISCHARGES OF UNTREATED WASTEWATER (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (g)(i))


148. Article 6, paragraph 2 (g), of the Protocol requires the setting of targets and target dates related to the occurrence of discharges of untreated wastewater. Access to sanitation is covered above under target 6, 2, (d); thus, this target concentrates on the (non-) treatment of wastewater.



(a) Legal provisions (obligation for treatment of polluted water according to the local situation, standards for different kinds of storage of untreated water):

(i) Enforcement (i.e. regular inspection, penalties for non-compliance with the obligations).


(i) Monitoring of surface and groundwater quality;

(c) Issues of management:

(i) Prevention of accidental pollution as a priority;

(ii) Set priorities based on environmental impact assessment;

(iii) Emergency reaction capacity (contingency planning);

(iv) Quality of sewerage systems and wastewater treatment.

(d) Awareness-raising, education and training:

(i) Information of population, small companies, water suppliers and authorities etc. with respect to the seriousness of the impacts of untreated wastewater on human health and the environment;

(ii) Provision of access to water quality data to the population.


C. Relevant regional or global obligations and recommendations for reporting

150. States from the European Economic Area and candidate countries should report every two years to Eurostat, data is differentiated into primary, secondary and tertiary treatment.

151. According to the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive 91/271/EC, all settlements with more than 2,000 inhabitants must have a proper treatment and collection system by 2005 in the EU-15 and by 2015 in the new EU Member States.

152. A review of definitions of wastewater treatment plants, their advantages and disadvantages can be found in WHO/UNEP/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater.16

X. OCCURRENCE OF DISCHARGES OF UNTREATED STORM WATER OVERFLOWS FROM WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS TO WATERS

WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PROTOCOL (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (g)(ii))


153. The second part of article 6, paragraph 2 (g), of the Protocol requires the setting of targets and target dates related to occurrence of discharges of untreated storm water overflows from wastewater collection systems to waters within the scope of the Protocol.


154. Storm water overflow represents a significant risk, but is not addressed in detail in European Commission or international legislation and the indicators used for the assessment of wastewater treatment coverage only concern the population (or population equivalent) served. Separated storm drain systems are the best way to deal with storm water, but since many countries have already combined systems for normal sewage and storm water upgrading all of these would be very expensive. Thus, other appropriate measures against storm water could be taken by countries such as construction of storage facilities for the excess drainage to settle. Appropriate targets might be set with regard to development by constructing only divided precipitation drainage systems, sufficient storage capacities, or for a combination of the two.



(i) Legal provisions for separation of drainage and wastewater (if possible);

(ii) Obligations for wastewater treatment installations to include a storm water retention basin;

16 See Volume II: Wastewater Use in Agriculture, p. 82, table 5.3.


(iii) Enforcement (inspection and penalties);

(b) Management issues:

(i) Construction of retention basins or of dual systems for drainage and wastewater and appropriate design of wastewater treatment installations;

(ii) Landscape planning favouring natural groundcover as opposed to impermeable covers.

C. Relevant global and regional obligations and reporting

156. According to the EU Wastewater Directive 91/271/EEC, “Member States shall decide on measures to limit pollution from storm water overflows. Such measures could be based on dilution rates or capacity in relation to dry weather flow, or could specify a certain acceptable number of overflows per year.”

XI. QUALITY OF DISCHARGES OF WASTEWATER FROMWASTEWATER TREATMENT INSTALLATIONS TO WATERS WITHIN THE SCOPE

OF THE PROTOCOL (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (h))


157. Article 6, paragraph 2 (h), of the Protocol requires the setting of targets and target dates related to the quality of discharges of wastewater from wastewater treatment installations to waters within the scope of the Protocol. This indicator refers explicitly to the quality of wastewater discharges from wastewater treatment systems that are often not reported on and often do not reach legal requirements.



(a) The legal, institutional and administrative setup:

(i) The existence of legal provisions:

a. Permit systems for industrial wastewater discharges;b. Standards for both urban and industrial wastewater treatment

effluent quality;

(ii) The enforcement of legal provisions:

a. Intervention capacity;


b. Contingency planning of emergency response measures in case of accidents;c. Risk assessment;

(b) Existence of appropriate infrastructure:

(i) Appropriate location of collection systems and treatment installations;

(ii) Existence of well-functioning and technologically appropriate treatment installations;

(iii)Appropriate maintenance of these treatment stations;

(iv) Appropriate treatment technology also in small-scale systems;


(i) Organic pollution: COD, BOD, total suspended solids, nitrogen and phosphorus;

(ii) Chemical pollution and dangerous chemical substances;

(iii)Microbiological indicators, e.g. faecal coliforms, pathogens;

(iv) Hazard mapping and appropriate adaptation of the treatment system;

(v) Appropriate selection of the sites/ rivers/lakes for discharge of treated effluents;

(d) Issues of information:

(i) Regular measuring of wastewater quality discharged from treatment stations;

(ii) Regular inspections of wastewater treatment installations and industrial sites;

(iii)Existence of industrial accidents notification system for the own population and of downstream countries;

(e) Awareness-raising, education and training:

(i) Appropriate and regular training of staff of treatment stations;

(ii) Information of the population on pollution prevention, remaining risks after treatment, etc.;

(f) Economic capacity:


(i) Application of the polluter pays principle: cost recovery of treatment costs through the polluter (water user fees (if possible) in case of urban wastewater treatment and payment by the company in case of industrial wastewater).

C. Relevant regional or global obligations and reporting systems

159. The EU Wastewater Directive 91/271/EEC sets standards for BOD, COD and total suspended solids. For drinking water capture zones under sensitive areas, it also requires compliance with standards for nitrogen and phosphorus.

160. The EU Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive 96/61/EC includes an indicative list of the main polluting substances to be taken into account if they are relevant for fixing emission limit values.

XII. DISPOSAL OR REUSE OF SEWAGE SLUDGE FROM COLLECTIVE SYSTEMS OF SANITATION OR OTHER SANITATION INSTALLATIONS (ART. 6,

PARA. 2 (i), first part)


161. The first paragraph of article 6, paragraph 2 (i), of the Protocol requires the setting of targets and target dates related to the disposal or reuse of sewage sludge from collective systems of sanitation or other sanitation installations taking into account the guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta and greywater in agriculture and aquaculture of WHO and UNEP.17




(i) Legal provisions to ensure that sludge reuse does not pose a risk to human health (e.g. existence of national standards for reuse of sludge and wastewater);

(ii) Enforcement (regular inspection, penalties for non-compliance with the obligations);


(i) Regular monitoring of sludge quality before reuse to make sure that it does not pose a risk to human health (procedural requirements, limit values for toxic metals and pathogens, mainly E. coli (and for helminth based on local health targets, where appropriate));

17 See http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/wastewater/gsuww/en/index.html.


(c) Adequate management of sludge:

(i) Adequate treatment mechanisms for drying sludge(e.g. drying beds, mechanical dewatering);

(ii) Sustainable reuse of sufficiently treated sludge;

(d) Awareness-raising, education and training:

(i) Training of staff dealing with sludge in treatment facilities and possibly agriculture.


163. Eurostat and EEA collect data on total sewage sludge production from urban wastewater, reuse of sludge for agriculture, composting, landfill, incineration and other methods of disposal.

164. The EU Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive 91/271/EEC stipulates that sludge arising from wastewater treatment shall be re-used whenever appropriate. Disposal routes shall minimize the adverse effects on the environment and competent authorities shall ensure that the disposal of sludge from urban wastewater treatment plants is subject to general rules or registration or authorization.

165. The Council Directive 86/278/EEC on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture regulates the use of sewage sludge in agriculture in such a way that contamination of soil and pollution of water does not occur from metal contaminants, nitrates and phosphates.

XIII. QUALITY OF WASTEWATER USED FOR IRRIGATION PURPOSES (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (i), second part)


166. The second part of article 6, paragraph 2 (i), of the Protocol requires the setting of targets and target dates related to the quality of wastewater used for irrigation purposes the taking into account the guidelines for the safe use of wastewater and excreta in agriculture and aquaculture of WHO and UNEP18.

167. Not all countries have developed detailed national legislation on the re-use of treated wastewater. One reference would be the WHO Guidelines.

168. The Guidelines define (see vol. 1, p. 32) verification as the application of methods, procedures, tests and other evaluations, in addition to those used in operational monitoring, to

18 See the Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater, http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/wastewater/gsuww/en/index.html.


determine compliance with the system design parameters and/or whether the system meets specified requirements (e.g. microbial water-quality testing for E. coli or helminth eggs, microbial or chemical analysis of irrigated crops). The Guidelines describe the minimum verification monitoring recommended to assess microbial performance targets for wastewater and excreta use in agriculture and aquaculture under conditions of urban and rural application of wastewater.



(a) Local systems of irrigation and the types of water sources (surface water, groundwater, wastewater, liquid excreta) used for irrigation in practice;

(b) Legally based measures for wastewater management;

(c) Legally based requirements on water quality (qualitative standards) used for irrigation and conditions of its use;

(d) Legally based requirements for food product safety (both microbiological and chemical parameters);

(e) The system of monitoring of irrigation water;

(f) Rules for planning, designing and operation of irrigation systems supporting good agriculture practice;

(g) Enforcement and effective application of legal requirements or good agriculture practice of irrigation;

(h) Central availability of monitoring data on non-compliance with existing standards (if any);

(i)Issues of environmental protection and sustainability regarding use of water resources for irrigation purposes.

C. Relevant regional or global obligations and recommendation on reporting

170. The WHO Guidelines recommend the following minimum verification monitoring of microbial performance targets for wastewater and excreta use in agriculture and aquaculture:


Activity/exposure Water quality monitoring19 parametersAgriculture E. coli per 100 ml20

(arithmetic mean)Helminth eggs per litre21

(arithmetic mean)Unrestricted irrigationRoot crops 103 1Leaf crops 104

Drip irrigation, high-growing crops

105

Restricted irrigationLabour-intensive, high-contact agriculture

104 1

Highly mechanized agriculture

105

Septic tank 106

Aquaculture E. coli per 100 ml(arithmetic mean)

Viable trematode eggs per litreb

Produce consumersPond 104 Not detectedWastewater 105 Not detectedExcreta 106 Not detectedWorkers, local communitiesPond 103 No viable trematode eggsWastewater 104 No viable trematode eggsExcreta 105 No viable trematode eggs

171. In line with the approach taken above, possible indicators include:

(a) Lack of compliance with the relevant parameter;

(b) Where appropriate, the concentration of viable helminth or trematode eggs per litre depending on the type of agricultural product grown (e.g. root crops, leaf crops, drip irrigation of high-growing crops) and the type of irrigation applied (e.g. labour-intensive, high-contact agriculture, (highly) mechanized agriculture).

172. Clearly, the selection of the individual indicators will depend to a great extent to the type of agriculture used at the national and even at the local level, and on the national legislation. 19 Monitoring should be conducted at the point of use or the point of effluent discharge. Frequency of monitoring is as follows:

(i) Urban areas: one sample every two weeks for E. coli and one sample per month for helminth eggs;

(ii) Rural areas: one sample every month for E. coli and one sample every 1–2 months for helminth eggs;

20 For excreta, weights may be used instead of volumes, depending on the type of excreta: 100 ml of wastewater is equivalent to 1–4 g of total solids; 1 litre = 10–40 g of total solids. The required E. coli or helminth numbers would be the same per unit of weight.21 Five litre composite samples are required for helminth eggs prepared from grab samples taken six times per day. Monitoring for trematode eggs is difficult due to lack of standardized procedures. The inactivation of trematode eggs should be evaluated as part of the validation of the system;


XIV. QUALITY OF WATERS WHICH ARE USED AS SOURCES FOR DRINKING WATER (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (j), first part)


173. The first part of article 6, paragraph 2 (j), of the Protocol requires the setting of targets and target dates related to the quality of waters used as sources for drinking water. Raw water quality is the key factor to ensure drinking water safety as protection of the source represents the first and basic barrier in multi-barrier approach. Protection of raw water sources should be considered important, since:

(a) Prevention of pollution is often cheaper and easier than treatment;

(b) Even advanced treatment technology does not necessarily ensure drinking water safety for 100 per cent, as risk of failure should be still considered.




(i) Legally based measures for the protection of waters used as sources for drinking water (water protection zones);

(ii) Enforcement and effective application of legal requirements on source water protection.


(i) Qualitative standards for raw water quality and its monitoring;

(ii) Online monitoring of raw (especially surface) water quality, i.e. capability to respond effectively to abnormal changes in raw water quality;

(iii) Treatment technologies applied according to local raw water quality (e.g. if it is not possible to comply with given quality standards, it may be feasible to include additional technological steps to continuously meet standards for human health protection).

(c) The availability and reliability of information:

(i) Central availability of data on non-compliance with existing standards (for raw water quality);


(ii) A composite index like the cost of the treatment of a unit volume of treated (surface or ground) water (at constant energy costs).

C. Relevant regional or global obligations and reporting systems

175. According to the EU Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC, EU Member States shall identify, within each river basin district, all waters used for the abstraction of drinking water and bodies of water intended for such future use (art. 7, para. 1), and establish, in the absence of relevant measures adopted at Community level within six years after the Directive entered into force, environmental quality standards for substances on the priority list of substances (see Decision 2455/2001/EC) for all such surface waters and controls on the principal sources of these substances, and for all subsequent substances included on such list, in the absence of action at the Community level, five years after their inclusion on such list.

176. According to the EU Groundwater Directive 2006/118/EC, measures to prevent and control groundwater pollution should be adopted, including criteria for assessing good groundwater chemical status and criteria, for the identification of significant and sustained upward trends and for the definition of starting points for trend reversals. The Directive includes standards for nitrates and pesticides.

XV. QUALITY OF WATERS USED FOR BATHING(ART. 6, PARA. 2 (j), second part)


177. The second part of article 6, paragraph 2 (j), of the Protocol requires the setting of targets and target dates related to the quality of waters used for bathing. Bathing waters differ significantly from country to country. Thus, each Government should classify its bathing waters (inland and coastal waters) and set standards for the different categories.




(i) Legal provisions relating to the management of waters used for bathing:

a. Assignment of responsibilities;b. Quality requirements;c. Monitoring requirements;d. Protection of surface waters used for recreation;e. Provisions for the handling of conflicts of interest;f. Measures of remediation;


(ii) Enforcement (ability of a competent authority to exert control over bathing water quality status);

(iii) Provisions for transitional problems and emergency situations.

(b) Issues of availability and reliability of information:

(i) Availability of information on the quality of bathing waters:

a. Laboratory system capable of monitoring bathing waters quality;b. Data transfer and treatment mechanisms for surveillance.

(ii) Quality assurance system in laboratories.


(i) Assessment of bathing water quality status;

(ii) Health effects surveillance linked to recreational water use;


(i) Financial capacity to comply with management responsibilities;

(ii) Provision of financial instruments to assist bathing water management actions.

(d) Awareness-raising, education, training:

(i) Provisions for upgrading the understanding of those obliged to conduct bathing waters management;

(ii) Provisions for public information and awareness;

(iii) Provisions for the involvement of the public in decisions related to bathing waters management.

C. Relevant regional or global obligations and recommendations reporting systems

179. A combination of the WHO Guidelines for safe recreational water environment22 and the EU Bathing Water Directive 76/160 and 2006/7/EEC and limit values is recommended. When needed, recommended parameters may go further than the EU legislation, for instance as

22 See http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/bathing/en/.


promoted by Blue Flag23, since clean bathing waters are important for the development of tourism and high bathing quality standards provide an incentive for treating wastewater, e.g. in coastal areas.

180. Possible indicators include:

(a) Bathing waters where E. coli and intestinal Enterococci values over a specified limit value occur or test results exceed it during a season. No limit value with this aim is currently specified by the new Bathing Water Directive 2006/7/EEC, but the composite limit value for the assessment of several test results throughout several seasons may be applicable. Thus the indicator can be:

(i) The number of freshwater samples (designated for bathing) with either E. coli counts exceeding 1000/100 ml or intestinal Enterococcus counts exceeding 400/100 ml in per cent of the total number of samples; or

(ii) The number of coastal/transitional water samples (designated for bathing) with either E. coli counts exceeding 500/100 ml or intestinal Enterococcus counts exceeding 200/100 ml in per cent of the total number of samples; or

(iii) The same, but on the basis of bathing waters where the above limits are exceeded throughout any one season.

(b) This is the approach with the closest conformity with the existing WatSan_S1 indicator; however, the limit value can be subject to further considerations (see also below);

(c) Number of designated bathing locations and percentage of bathing waters under control monitoring is an indicator option currently being developed by the WHO working group for ENHIS. The only difficulty here is the problem of gathering accurate data about the uncontrolled waters frequented by “wild bathers”. This, however, is a clearly health-related concern, and the indicator should thus be encouraged;

(d) The new assessment scheme of the new EU Bathing Water Directive 2006/7/EEC, which should be implemented by 2015, is based on a compound statistical measure of the water quality of each of the bathing waters. Targets and indicators bound to this scheme are plausible for EU Member States, but may seem too “artificial” and laborious to follow for others. Therefore, the above-mentioned, more direct indicators may be preferred with the advantage that EU Member States that use the assessment scheme of the Directive can also easily infer the data needed for it;

(e) Number of bathing waters covered by Blue Flag or other nationally or internationally accepted award schemes also addressing the quality of the water;

23 See www.blueflag.org.


(f) One way in which potential hazards can be brought together on a location-specific basis is through the development of a recreational water safety plan. This includes a programme for monitoring and assessment as well as a management plan. WHO suggests that such a safety plan be adapted from a country or regionally specific generic plan, which could include a hazard rating scheme and an overall recreational water rating. The advantage of adapting a generic plan is that all recreational water areas in a specific area are rate against the same scale, thus allowing national action;

(g) An upcoming indicator can be the number of bathing waters for which a bathing water profile is publicly available. Displaying bathing water profiles is an obligation for EU Member States by the 2011 season, but the exact meaning and contents requirement is still under development. The system, however, seems worthy of being followed by non-EU Parties.

181. The WHO Guidelines24 provide the following guideline values for microbial quality of recreational waters:

Ninety-fifth percentile value of intestinal enterococci/100 ml (rounded values)

Basis of derivation Estimated risk per exposure

40A

This range is below the NOAEL in most epidemiological studies

1 per cent GI illness risk 0.3 per cent AFRI riskThe upper 95th percentile value of 40/100ml relates to an average probability of less than one case of gastroenteritis in every 100 exposures. The AFRI burden would be negligible/

41 – 200B

The 200/100 ml value is above the threshold of illness transmission reported in most epidemiological studies that have attempted to define a NOAEL or LOAEL for GI illness and AFRI

1–5 per cent illness risk0.3–1.9 per cent AFRI riskThe upper 95th percentile value of 200/200ml relates to an average probability of one case of GI in 20 exposures. The AFRI illness rate at this upper value would be less than 19 per 1000 exposures, or less than approximately 1 in 50 exposures

201 – 500C

This range represents a substantial elevation in the probability of all adverse health outcomes for which dose-response data are available

5–10 per cent GI illness risk1.9–3.9 per cent AFRI riskThis range of 95th percentiles represents a probability of 1 in 10 to 1 in 20 of gastroenteritis for a single exposure. Exposures in this category also suggest a risk of AFRI in the range of 19–39

24 WHO, Guidelines for safe recreational water environments, vol. 1 Coastal and Fresh water (Geneva, WHO, 2003), p. 70.


per 1000 exposures, or a range of approximately 1 in 50 to 1 in 25 exposures

500D

Above this level, there may be a significant risk of high levels of minor illness transmissions

10% GI illness riskAFRI riskThere is a greater than 10% change of gastroenteritis per single exposure. The AFRI illness rate at the 95th percentile point of >500/100ml would be greater than 39 per 1000 exposures, or greater than approximately 1 in 25 exposures.

Notes: Abbreviations used: A – D are the corresponding microbial water quality assessment categories used as part of the classification procedure. AFRI=acute febrile respiratory illness; GI = gastrointestinal, LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level. For other notes, please refer to the original literature.

182. The new EU Bathing Water Directive25 provides the following values for microbial quality of bathing waters:

For inland watersA B C D EParameter Excellent

qualityGood quality Sufficient Reference method

or analysis1 Intestinal enterococci

(cfu/ 100 ml)200 (*) 400 (*) 330 (**) ISO 7899-1 or

ISO 7899-22 Escherichia coli

(cfu/100 ml)500(*) 1000 (*) 900(**) ISO 9308-3 or

ISO 9308-1

(*) Based upon a 95-percentile evaluation. (**) Based upon a 90-percentile evaluation.

For coastal waters and transitional watersA B C D EParameter Excellent

qualityGood quality Sufficient Reference method

or analysis1 Intestinal enterococci

(cfu/ 100 ml)100 (*) 200 (*) 185 (**) ISO 7899-1 or

ISO 7899-22 Escherichia coli (cfu/100

ml)250(*) 500 (*) 500(**) ISO 9308-3 or

ISO 9308-1

(*) Based upon a 95-percentile evaluation. (**) Based upon a 90-percentile evaluation.

25 Directive 2006/7/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC.


183. While the old Directive required regular monitoring of 19 pollutants or other parameters (e.g. water colour), the new Directive has reduced the list to just two microbiological indicators of faecal contamination, E. coli and intestinal Enterococci. It applies to surface water where a large number of people are expected to bathe, establishing a method for monitoring bathing water quality during the bathing season. The classification of water quality at a bathing site is determined on the basis of a four- or three-year trend instead of a single year’s result as at present.

184. A relevant indicator is the Watsan_S1 Recreational Water Quality indicators collected through ENHIS.

185. The EU Bathing Water Directive requires EU Member States to provide the European Commission with the results of the monitoring and with the bathing water quality assessment for each bathing water, as well as with a description of significant management measures taken. The Commission will then publish an annual summary report on bathing water quality in the Community, including bathing water classifications, conformity with the Directive and significant management measures undertaken.

186. The EU Bathing Water Directive also requires elaboration of bathing water profiles for all designated bathing waters. The profile consists of a description of the bathing water; identification and assessment of causes of pollution; assessment of potential for proliferation of cyanobacteria, macroalgae and phytoplankton; and in case of any risks, management measures to be taken. The profile must be reviewed at regular intervals depending on the water quality.

XVI. QUALITY OF WATERS USED FOR AQUACULTURE OR FOR THE PRODUCTION OR HARVESTING SHELLFISH (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (j), third part)


187. The third part of article 6, paragraph 2 (j), of the Protocol requires the setting of targets and target dates related to the quality of waters used for aquaculture or for the production or harvesting shellfish.




(i) Existing regulations either purposely designed to protect/allow aquaculture or provisions on aquaculture incorporated into existing legislation;

a. The purpose of the industry (e.g. the market – local or export, employment, sport, recreation);


b. The system for production (e.g. pond, peal cage, open water); c. The environment in which production is done (e.g. lowland

inland plains; costal swamplands; lakes/reservoirs, along river/streams), along irrigation systems.

(ii) Effective implementation of legislation.


(i) The monitoring system (site-specific), addressing water quality concerns and providing adequate baseline and operational data;

(ii) The development and application of simple, practical “early warning” indicators addressing detrimental changes to phytoplankton and zooplankton;

(iii)The development of best management practices for aquaculture operations, including risk-benefit analysis;

(iv) The development and application of simple models to estimate “carrying capacity” and predict site suitability for aquaculture operations;

(v) The impacts of caged aquaculture operations on structure and function of the fishery and biodiversity; and comprehensive fish disease management.

C. Relevant regional or global obligations and recommendations on reporting

189. Possible indicators in this area include:

(a) The existence of targets and parameters for waters used for aquaculture or for the production or harvesting shellfish, including physical, biological and chemical parameters;

(b) Compliance with the existing standards.

190. The Shellfish Directive 79/923/EEC requires that certain substances are monitored in the water in which the shellfish live and grow. These substances can threaten the survival of shellfish, inhibit their growth or make them too expensive to treat before they can be used as a food source. For each substance, the Directive specifies the minimum number of samples to be taken and the percentage of samples that must meet these standards.


XVII. APPLICATION OF RECOGNIZED GOOD PRACTICE TO THE MANAGEMENT OF ENCLOSED WATERS26 GENERALLY AVAILABLE FOR

BATHING (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (k))


191. Article 6, paragraph 2 (k), of the Protocol requires the setting of targets and target dates related to the application of recognized good practice to the management of enclosed waters generally available for bathing. If not managed properly, enclosed waters can represent significant risks, including microbiological and chemical contamination. The WHO Guidelines for Safe Recreational Water Environments27 include a number of good practice principles and recommendations, but no quantitative parameters. Many countries have their own laws and standards, or if not, will set them.

192. Public pools and spas are generally required to be equipped with water treatment and disinfection appliances in order to ensure an acceptable low risk of infections transmitted via the water. This requirement is clearly subject of resources available for health promotion in less developed countries. Pools operated with water of recognized medicinal composition can be exempted, as the treatment and disinfection may damage the effect. In this case, however, the water exchange, user frequency, bathing duration and other operational parameters should be under strict control, and use should generally be limited for patients with medical condition.

193. Public pools without regard to their type should be managed by personnel with approved education and training, and management practice should be subject to regular control by health or other competent authorities. A key aspect of this control is the water quality, which should be checked by an accredited or otherwise notified laboratory in addition to the pool-side checks done by the operator.

194. A desirable achievement would be the public pools being operated under a certified risk-based management system (e.g. a pool safety plan-based system). This might be subject of an extended target for the future.

26 According to article 2 of the Protocol, “enclosed waters” means artificially created water bodies separated from surface freshwater or coastal water, whether within or outside a building.27 See http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/bathing/bathing2/en/.


Box 13. Progress in setting Protocol’s targets in Republic of Moldova and Ukraine




(i) Legal provisions relating to the public enclosed recreational water (pool and spa) establishments;

(ii) Design and construction permitting;

(iii)Licensing of procedures and materials for water treatment and disinfection;

(iv) Rules of water use and bathers’ load;

Ukraine became a Party to the Protocol on 26 September 2003. Republic of Moldova became a Party on 15 December 2005.

As of April 2009 neither the Republic of Moldova nor Ukraine had set targets in accordance with the article 6 of the Protocol. However, in both countries discussions between health and environment authorities had started and the first actions designed for the implementation of the Protocol, and setting targets in particular have been initiated. Both countries have also submitted project proposals for setting targets and target dates under the Protocol to the Ad Hoc Project Facilitation Mechanism, established under article 14 of the Protocol.

In Ukraine, the Ministry of Environment Protection is the main coordinator of the activities related to the implementation of the Protocol. To set the targets and assist in the implementation of Protocol, the Ministry has initiated the establishment of interdepartmental committee. Moreover, in 2008 the State Ecological Academy of Post-Graduate Education of Ukraine was assigned to analyse the country situation with respect to setting targets and target dates in accordance with Protocol. The analysis will serve as a basis for recommendations and priorities to be taken into account when setting targets in Ukraine.

In the Republic of Moldova, appropriate tools for integrated water resources management, that meet the requirements of the Protocol have recently been approved or are under development. They include the following: (a) water-related policies, strategies, plans and legislation; (b) institutional frameworks conducive for the implementation of the policies, strategies and legislation; (c) management instruments required by the institutional framework to carry out the institutions’ tasks; and (d) capacity-building, awareness-raising and stakeholder information and consultations. Management instruments will be improved, as rules for the protection of surface waters and rules for the delineation of water bodies according to the Water Framework Directive are expected to be submitted to Government in the course of 2009. Moreover, a new system for water quality classification has been jointly developed by Moldovan water management and health authorities under an EU/TACIS (Technical Aid to the Commonwealth of Independent States) project, which is expected to be adopted by Government in the course of 2009.


(v) Quality requirements;

(vi) Monitoring requirements.

(b) Enforcement (ability of a competent authority to exert control over pool and spa operation):

(i) Legal provisions relating to the private pools;

(ii) Commercial (retail) permits;

(iii) Licensing of water treatment and disinfection chemicals.

(c) Issues of availability and reliability of information:

(i) Availability of information on the quality of public pool and spa waters;

(ii) Laboratory systems capable of monitoring;

(iii) Data availability for surveillance;

(iv) Quality assurance system in laboratories.

(d) Issues of quality:

(i) Assessment of facility characteristics relevant for the prevention of physical accidents;

(ii) Assessment of water quality with regard to health risks of the use of pool and spa facilities;

(iii) Health effects surveillance linked to the use of public pool and spa facilities.


(i) Provisions for upgrading the competence of pool and spa designers and operators;

(ii) Provisions for assistance to the public in avoiding adverse health effects related to the private pool use;

(iii) Provisions for public information and awareness with regard to rules and advices of user behaviour in public facilities.



196. Possible indicators in this area include:

(a) The existence of national standards for enclosed bathing waters;

(b) Cases of non-compliance with national targets and standards and/or good practices for enclosed waters generally available for bathing, for example:

(i) Appropriate treatment, including filtration;

(ii) Proper application of chlorine or other disinfectants;

(iii) Daily thorough cleaning;

(iv) Good ventilation;

(v) Complete draining and cleaning of the hot tub and pipework, at least weekly.

(c) The number of public pools (including spa pools and all other types covered by the WHO Guidelines) equipped with approved water recirculation, treatment and disinfection appliances in percentage of the total number of public pools. Medicinal pools may be exempted only if the damage by the treatment to the chemical composition of the water with attributed medicinal effect is proven. Natural (non-enclosed) pools are also exempted, and are subject to different requirements/regulation (if any);

(d) The number of public pools operated by management under the control of competent authority acting on the basis of relevant legal instrument versus all public pools. The control should include the regular assessment of the quality of the water by the authority itself or by an accredited third-party laboratory, and should extend to a minimum number of bacteriological, and possibly some chemical and physical, parameters;

(e) The number of public pools complying with the legal water quality (and possibly, management- and environment-related) requirements during any one year versus all public pools). A national system of compliance assessment should be available, otherwise a more simple but less comprehensive indicator of the number of non-compliant test results per public pool per year;

(f) A composite indicator of the number of public pools operated in the framework of establishments equipped with an approved pool safety system versus all public pools could also be used.


XVIII. IDENTIFICATION AND REMEDIATION OF PARTICULARLY CONTAMINATED SITES (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (l))


197. Article 6, paragraph 2 (l), of the Protocol requires the setting of targets and target dates related to the identification and remediation of particularly contaminated sites that adversely affect waters within the scope of this Protocol or are likely to do so, and that thus threaten to give rise to water-related diseases.




(i) The legal framework for remediation of contaminated sites;

(ii) Enforcement (e.g. the ability of a competent authority to oversee and control contaminated sites);

(iii)Intervention capacity (e.g. the mechanisms available for the society/State to take measures for remediation).

(b) The availability and reliability of information on contaminated sites:

(i) Inventory of contaminated sites;

(ii) Risk assessment of contaminated sites for surface and ground waters (e.g. programmes to assist developing and transition economies in carrying out rapid environmental and health assessments28);

(iii)Information on costs for remediation.

(c) Management and remediation of contaminated sites:

(i) Remediation action taken to reduce risk for human health through surface and ground waters;

(ii) Action for specific contaminants (persistent organic pollutants).

28 See, for instance, the Rapid Environmental and Health Risk Assessment (REHRA) project, a joint effort of WHO-Europe and the Ministry for the Environment of Italy. The REHRA project developed a tool enabling national authorities and regional bodies to rapidly rank environment and health risks from a wide variety of active and inactive industrial sources, and to plan appropriate measures. See http://www.euro.who.int/watsan/CountryActivities/20030729_10.


199. Economic aspects (investments made for remediation of contaminated sites)

200. Awareness-raising, education and training:

(a) Public campaigns to raise awareness on contaminated sites;

(b) Training of those responsible for remediation.

Box 14. Example of targets in relation to article 6 (l)

Czech Republic

Update the database of the “System of contaminated sites registers”, including data on persistent organic pollutants. Perform consistent inventory of contaminated sites, including preliminary assessment of possible health or ecological risks. The assessment will be used for future risk analysis and assessment of necessity of decontamination measures, including the economic assessment of such measures.

HungaryRemediation of 3.305 million m3 contaminated soil and the recultivation of 1,500 dumping sites are to be accomplished by 2015. These targets are covered by the Government Decree on the protection of groundwaters and implemented by the National Programme on Environmental Remediation.


201. A relevant indicator measured by EEA is the CSI 015 indicator, “Contaminated sites management”.

202. The term “contaminated site” refers to a well-delimited area where the presence of soil contamination has been confirmed. The severity of the impacts to ecosystems and human health can be such that remediation is needed, specifically in relation to the current or planned use of the site. The remediation or clean-up of contaminated sites can result in a full elimination or in a reduction of these impacts. The indicator shows progress in four main steps: (a) preliminary study; (b) preliminary investigation; (c) main site investigation; and (d) implementation of risk reduction measures. Possible indicators could include:

(a) Number of sites managed/to be managed at different management steps;

(b) Percentage of sites where risk reduction measures are completed and where need for remediation measures is estimated, as related to the estimated total number of sites to be identified by surveys;


(c) Expenditures are provided in million euros per capita per year and million euros per gross domestic product (GDP).

XIX. EFFECTIVENESS OF SYSTEMS FOR THE MANAGEMENT, DEVELOPMENT, PROTECTION AND USE OF WATER RESOURCES (ART. 6, PARA.

2 (m))


203. Article 6, paragraph 2 (m), of the Protocol requires the setting of targets and target dates related to the effectiveness of systems for the management, development, protection and use of water resources, including the application of recognized good practice to the control of pollution from sources of all kinds. In addition, according to article 6, paragraph 5 (b), Parties shall establish water management plans in transboundary, national and/or local contexts, preferably on the basis of catchment areas or groundwater aquifers. The public shall be involved.

204. In accordance with article 5 of the Protocol: (a) water resources shall be managed in a sustainable way (art. 5, para. (d)); (b) action to manage water resources should be taken at the lowest appropriate administrative level ( article 5, para. (f)); (c) efficient use of water should be promoted through economic instruments and awareness-raising (art. 5, para. (h)); and (d) water resources should, as far as possible, be managed in an integrated manner on the basis of catchment areas, with the aims of linking social and economic development to the protection of natural ecosystems and of relating water resource management to regulatory measures concerning other environmental mediums. Such an integrated approach should apply across the whole of a catchment area, whether transboundary or not, including its associated coastal waters, and to the whole of groundwater aquifer (art. 5, para. (j)).

205. Moreover, article 13 of the Protocol encourages Parties to establish, with other Parties bordering the same transboundary waters, joint or coordinated water management plans.

Box 15. Improving quality of water through changing of agriculture management practices in protection zones and setting up compensation schemes, such as payments for ecosystem services29

Payments for ecosystem services (PES) entail a contractual transaction between a buyer and a seller for an ecosystem service or a land/use management practice likely to secure that service. There are many different ways for organizing PES. PES can generate additional alternative resources, redirect funds to environmentally friendly technologies and sustainable production patterns, create incentives for investment, and increase private-sector involvement in environmental protection.

Intensive farming is often the main cause of ground and surface water pollution. Changing the 29 For further guidance on this issue, see http://www.unece.org/env/water/publications/documents/PES_Recommendations_web.pdf.

http://www.unece.org/env/water/publications/documents/PES_Recommendations_web.pdf


management practices into low- intensity pasture systems, organic farming, could reduce surface and ground water pollution, improve the quality of water resources but also protect the water-related ecosystems.

There are examples of different, private, public, private-public PES schemes. In France, Vittel, a private water company, financed farmers to change their farming practices to reduce the risk of nitrate contamination.

In Germany, all 16 Federal States have special protection zones for water bodies that are used for drinking water supply. The zones have three sectors in which different provisions with regard to use of fertilizers, handling of dangerous substances, petrol stations etc. are valid. These zones are established according to fixed procedures, including stakeholder participation. All of the Federal States have special ordinances for the compensation of the farmers, or there are direct contracts between the water supply side and the farmers. Compensations is also legally regulated by the National Water Act and the Water Acts of the Federal States.




(i) The legal framework (e.g. at the national and transboundary levels, including permits, licensing and environmental impact assessment);

(ii) The institutional framework (e.g. the existence and effectiveness of national authorities as well as joint bodies such as international river basin commissions, cooperation between authorities and decentralization of decision-making);

(iii) Enforcement (e.g. the ability of a competent authority to oversee and control, compliance with permits, level of fines, payment of fines);

(iv) Integration of water management issues in legal and policy instruments related to other sectors, such as agriculture, energy and industry.

(b) Availability and reliability of information:

(i) Inventory of pressures, land use, emissions (e.g. pollutant release and transfer registers);

(ii) Monitoring systems (on the basis of the river basin, including transboundary aspects);

(iii) Data management and data exchange (e.g. between authorities, between riparian countries);


(iv) Capacity to do assessment of ecological and chemical status and quantity aspects;

(v) Cooperation at the transboundary level on monitoring and assessment.

(c) Status of water resources and related ecosystems:

(i) Improving quality and quantity status (including ecological aspects), setting environmental targets;

(ii) Protected areas;

(iii) Biodiversity.

(d) Planning and implementation of water management measures:

(i) Programme of measures based on assessment;

(ii) IWRM plans;

(iii) Application of good practices (e.g. agriculture practices) and best available techniques;

(iv) Implementation of measures and monitoring of their effectiveness;

(v) Cooperation at the transboundary level.

(e) Economic aspects:

(i) Economic valuation of water and related ecosystems;

(ii) Application of polluter pays principle, use of economic instruments to promote water efficiency and prevent pollution (e.g. water allocation and permits for use and fines);

(iii) Cost-benefit analysis of water management measures and cost recovery of water management measures;

(iv) Economic incentives (payments for ecosystem services);

(v) Resources made available for water management-related projects (from the national budget and international assistance);

(vi) Sharing costs and benefits at the transboundary level;

(f) Awareness-raising, education and training:


(i) Public participation in water management;

(ii) Campaigns to increase the awareness of the general public and stakeholders (farmers) to promote protection of water resources and sustainable practices;

(iii) Training of staff in competent authorities.

Box 16. Setting targets for sustainable water management: the Armenian approach in the Marmarik catchment area

The catchment area of the Marmarik River, a 37-km-long Armenian watercourse in the transboundary basin of the Kura-Araks, draining approximately 418 km2, was chosen as a pilot area to apply the principles of the Convention and its Protocol on Water and Health, as well as the EU Water Framework Directive. The activities, under the leadership of the Agency for Water Management, were part of the National Policy Dialogue process conducted under the EU Water Initiative, had the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) as a strategic partner and were financed by the European Commission. In order to establish targets on sustainable water management, the process followed the major steps (i.e., the identification of key stakeholders, baseline analysis, prioritization of activities, broad consultations with the public, agreement on targets, and development of relevant programme of measures) as described in this Guidelines. The baseline analysis revealed that – despite the relatively good water quality in the catchment area – the availability of water resources under the impact of climate change may decrease by 20–80 per cent, which in turn would have a significant adverse effect on the existing water quality. The current water use (2007) is in the order of 12.5 million m3, and hydropower uses account for approximately 3 million m3. However, the demand for irrigational water is in the order of 49 million m3, which leads to a huge water deficit in the irrigation period, and would call for a “reservoir construction programme”. To maintain a good water quality status and achieve the desired conditions related to the quantity and quality of water supply, an analysis of the necessary legal, institutional and technical measures was conducted and a preliminary cost estimate was made. A cost estimate of the necessary legal, institutional and technical measures was made to maintain a good water quality status and achieve the desired conditions related to the quantity and quality of water supply. This totaled US$ 12 million (around $1,500 per inhabitant).

In consultations involving residents and representatives of major water users and local self-governance authorities, the following 10 general targets related to sustainable water management – in order of priority – were drawn up:

(a) Development of a system for the strict protection of drinking and mineral water resources, as well as their efficient use;

(b) Expansion of the territory of the hydrological reserve and strengthening of the protection regime;

(c) Protection and development of water resources for recreational purposes;


(d) Development of hydropower production through the construction of small hydropower plants;

(e) Management and regulation of the river flow, including construction of reservoirs;

(f) Development of the irrigation system;

(g) Drawing up conditions for industrial water use and developing appropriate enforcement mechanisms;

(h) Introduction and development of a system for discharge and treatment of wastewater from point sources;

(i) Development of a system for prevention of water pollution from diffuse sources;

(j) Development of a system for the reduction and prevention of erosion.

These targets will by further elaborated and supported by numerical values, including both targets and target dates.


207. Parties have also agreed to include in their summary reports to the Meeting of the Parties information on the management, use and protection of freshwater resources by using the following common indicators.

1. Water quality

208. On the basis of national systems of water classifications, Parties will include the percentage of water falling into each defined class (e.g. into classes I, II, III, etc. for non-EU countries; for EU countries, the percentage of surface waters with high, good, moderate, poor or bad ecological status, the percentage of surface waters with good or poor chemical status and percentage of groundwaters of good or poor status).

2. Water quantity

209. Parties will also provide water exploitation indices at the national and river-basin levels for each sector (e.g. agriculture, industry, domestic). These will have the mean annual abstraction of freshwater by sector divided by the mean annual total renewable freshwater resource at the country level, expressed in percentage terms.

D. Relevant global and regional obligations and reporting

210. At the global level, periodical reporting are organized, for instance within the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, to measure progress made towards the MDGs


and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, in particular related to the target on establishing IWRM plans.

211. The EU Water Framework Directive requires submission of several reports, for instance river basin management plans and reports on river basin districts and competent authorities.

212. Several transboundary agreements require assessment and reporting.

XX. FREQUENCY OF PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION ON THE QUALITY OF DRINKING WATER SUPPLIED AND OF OTHER WATERS

RELEVANT TO THE PROTOCOL (ART. 6, PARA. 2 (n))


213. Countries shall set the frequency of the publication of information on the quality of the drinking water supplied and of other waters relevant to the targets set, in the intervals between the publication of information on the collection and evaluation of date on the progress towards the targets. Such publication should take place every three years, as decided by the Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol.

B. Relevant regional or global obligations and reporting

214. Parties to the Protocol shall publish at least every three years the results of data collection and evaluation in accordance with the requirements of article 7, paragraph 2, of the Protocol. Moreover, in accordance with article 7, paragraph 4, of the Protocol, Parties shall review progress made in achieving the targets every three years.

215. The reporting obligation frequency in relevant EU directives is as follows:

(a) EU Bathing Water Directive 76/160/EEC: reporting on an annual basis;

(b) Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EEC: each Member State shall publish a report every three years on the quality of water intended for human consumption with the objective of informing consumers;

(c) Nitrate Directive 91/676/EEC: every four years;

(d) Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive 91/271/EEC: every two years.


Annex

EXAMPLES OF RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS

United Nations Millennium Development Goals

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

World Health Organization International Health Regulations

UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters

UNECE Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents

UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes

Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy (Water Framework Directive)

Council Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption (Drinking Water Directive)

Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban wastewater treatment

Directive 2006/113/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the quality required of shellfish waters

Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the management of bathing water quality and Council Directive 76/160/EEC concerning the quality of bathing water

Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration (Groundwater Directive)

Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources

Former Council Directive 75/440/EEC concerning the quality required of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States (repealed)Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances and Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 96/82/EC


Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and its successive amendments

Bilateral and multilateral transboundary water agreements entered into by the Parties

-----

Date post:	11-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Bericht_D - unece.org · Web viewAn upcoming indicator can be the number of bathing waters for...

Documents